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

I reviewed the changes and I don't consider them substantive.  The 
sentence added that the property can be changed is on the borderline 
between "clarification" and "insubstantive change", as it doesn't 
change either client or server behavior.

There is a concern that this WG doesn't have as many active members as 
it needs to do careful review of new specs, but the ACL specification 
is actually quite mature (having been reviewed by quite a few people 
over a period of years) and has been implemented by more than one 
group, with some interoperability testing.


On Apr 19, 2004, at 10:28 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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 drafts).
> Best regards, Julian
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- -- tel:+492512807760
> _______________________________________________
> acl mailing list

Received on Monday, 19 April 2004 13:51:44 UTC