- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:57:39 -0700
- To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I replied in private mail, but again, here's the relevant standards on this issue: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: "The Internet-Drafts directories are available to provide authors with the ability to distribute and solicit comments on documents they may eventually submit to the IESG for publication as an RFC." http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt; " During the development of a specification, draft versions of the document are made available for informal review and comment by placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is replicated on a number of Internet hosts. This makes an evolving working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating the process of review and revision." I won't take a stand on whether it was wrong of the ACL editors to circulate drafts in such a manner that you had to be a mailing list member in order to know there was new text to look at. It's a grey area, because when multiple authors are working on a new document, it's important to be able to share it. I firmly believe that it is correct for a draft to go to the IETF Internet-Draft repository when it is circulated to the entire WG mailing list. I would be happy to have Patrick, Ned or Harald correct me on this. Lisa > -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 9:50 AM > To: Lisa Dusseault; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-02.txt > > Lisa, > > it's just that I think a *lot* of bad mood could be avoided if there was a > time window between edits on the I-D and the actual submission. As you > have > seen, many of the changes you made *are* controversial. So maybe the > approach the WG is/was using for the ACL draft makes more sense (submit > when > stable instead of submit when new)? > > Julian > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 6:44 PM > > To: 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > > Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-02.txt > > > > > > > > > but I really have a problem with the process here. Why is the I-D > > > submitted > > > *before* there is consensus on the changes? > > > > > To be clear, I thought that for all the issues in the draft, either: > > - they weren't controversial, > > - OR they were controversial but consensus (not unanimity) was close. > > > > And in any case, it's the exact wording that needs to be seen to > > determine real consensus. When I-D's are published, it's correct to > > publish them to the I-D repository, rather than just circulate them on > > the list. If we were only to circulate a RFC2518-bis text document on > > the DAV list, then non-list-members wouldn't have the same awareness and > > accessibility to the document that they have if documents are published > > correctly. > > > > Also, I thought this goes without saying, but nobody is implying that > > this I-D is anywhere ready for WG last call. There are major unresolved > > issues. > > > > We always encourage discussion and if desired straw polls on the list. > > > > lisa > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 12:58:27 UTC