Re: [ACL] Re: Last minute ACL stuff (was DAV:unauthenticated usage)

Ted Hardie wrote:

> Are you talking about making this change during AUTH 48?
> This is not a time at which substantive changes are allowed.
> You will note that this draft has been significantly delayed in
> publication because of the changes which were included during
> the last round, including a need to return the whole document
> to the IESG agenda for re-approval and a restart in the
> RFC Editor's queue.  Doing this again will raise very serious
> questions about the extent to which this working group has
> reviewed specs sent to the IESG/RFC Editor.

Yes, I indeed was talking about AUTH48, and I'm aware of the implications.

In this case a property that everybody thought was optionally changeable 
indeed wasn't. Removing the requirement that it's indeed non-writeable 
(= protected) doesn't change anything for clients and servers that don't 
want to support authoring; but it makes it legal for those who wish to 
do so. As a matter of fact, people that need the ability to change that 
property will likely support that in their servers no matter what the 
specs says about it, and thus this would end up on a future issue/errata 
list anyway. Therefore I think this is a good change that won't have any 
negative side effects.

On the other hand, I've been announcing that change because it *is* a 
change, and because we need feedback and full consensus on it. If you or 
the RFC-Editor feel this one is problematic, I'll be happy to roll back 
that change (= remove it from the issues list sent back to the RFC Editor).

For the record: I fully support the statement that drafts submitted for 
publication need to be of high quality; and I'm trying to enhance that 
quality by using the best tools available (rfc2629 format instead of 
Word, and complete change and issue tracking on everything we do between 

Best regards, Julian

<green/>bytes GmbH -- -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Monday, 19 April 2004 13:44:18 UTC