- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 20:50:00 +0200
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: 'webdav' WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Lisa Dusseault wrote: > ... >> Will the working group chair(s) start shepherding some or all of these >> documents? If yes, which and when? If no, is there an expectation to >> the WG to do any specific additional work so they can? > > > Yes, I am willing to shepherd BIND, REDIRECT, QUOTA and/or RFC2518bis > through this process -- provided they meet the bar. For BIND, the > document for which we have the most information, we still have > underspecified areas and we haven't had the open and exploratory > conversations to find out if we can firm those up, but the more If you think that, you really should either bring them up (if new), or follow-up on the discussions we had on the mailing list. Claiming that there are open issues but not participating in discussing them doesn't seem productive to me. See (for instance): <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005AprJun/0001.html>. > difficult hurdle may well be the lack of reviews and implementors. If We've got at least two implementations. How many do we need to for "Proposed"? > we don't have the energy as a WG to finish that properly, it's my > opinion that we could instead bring BIND immediately to submission as > an Informative RFC, where it would be an exemplary and high-quality > example of that class. That would indeed be preferrable to doing nothing at all (although, shouldn't it be "Experimental" instead???); however I personally think that the BIND spec really should be submitted for publication as "Proposed" (in contrast to REDIRECT which *currently* seems to only have one implementation). Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2005 18:50:12 UTC