- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 12:13:46 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
What's been holding up RFC2518bis is lack of clear consensus -- or a reliable way of determining it -- on several issues. When we're ready, we can reintroduce discussion on those issues and see if now there is a clear consensus or a way to determine one. The most high-level issue is whether RFC2518bis is intended to be a proposed standard or a draft standard. I believe this issue is implied by the proposal to remove locking from RFC2518 -- a change that big, even though it's a feature removal, may require recycling at proposed standard. Lisa On Apr 6, 2004, at 8:16 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Jason Crawford wrote: >> A new LOCKING document? I'm not sure. Admittedly LOCK'ing has been >> a problem for a long time. Tossing out lock-null resources was a >> big help. Is locking holding up 2518bis? Does creating a new >> document help? Let's hear the pros and cons of having a separate >> document for locking? > > We talked about that in January > (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JanMar/ > 0030.html>). > > Primarily, it reduces the complexity of RFC2518bis, and allows us to > both clarify and enhance locking without getting problems with > RFC2518bis advancing in the standards ladder. > > And yes, what's holding up 2518bis? The last draft was posted almost > six months ago, to which I replied with a long list of issues. There > was almost no feedback. > > Regards, Julian > > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 >
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2004 15:14:12 UTC