W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: WG process (was Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-07.txt)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 20:50:00 +0200
Message-ID: <42961A57.9070402@gmx.de>
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): 

> 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 

> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:34 UTC