- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 11:59:41 +0200
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: 'webdav' WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>
> Hi Julian,
>
> In WG meeting notes posted March 9 2004
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JanMar/0083>:
>
> "Redirect: No major issues -- but no recent activity. OTOH, there may
> not be many implementors. Perhaps we can last call and require a
> minimum # of reviews."
>
> I didn't press the issue because I recalled it being your stated
> intention that you preferred to finish Binding first. Then on April 8
As far as I am concerned, BIND is finished (meaning that depending of
how one judges the current situation, either all issues have indeed been
resolved, or resolution of these issues is pending until those how
raised the issues come back discussing them).
> 2004 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004AprJun/
> 0037.html> you sent revision 07 of Redirect and said:
>
> "This draft reflects the current state and is work-in-progress."
You may have missed that since then four more drafts have been posted
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol>).
> Do you consider Redirect to not be a work-in-progress any more? If so,
> do you have diffs (from 06, perhaps) handy so we can gauge the extent
> of changes? Once we resolve the status of the WG, I'd support a
> last-call with a minimum # of reviews solicited.
As far as I can tell, it's done, otherwise I wouldn't ask for Last Call.
Back in February I wrote
(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0293.html>):
"B3. REDIRECT
As far as I can tell, we (greenbytes) are the only ones actively working
on this (both spec and implementation). I think the spec is very close
to be finished; but I would prefer to have it fully implemented before
proceeding."
The meeting minutes for the last meeting
(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0326.html>)
say:
"REDIRECT
Redirect draft: progress waiting on author's implementation (Netweaver
again) to push forward)"
...and this is what happened.
All changes are summarized in an appendix of the text version (see
below); marked-up diffs with the changes between the individual drafts
are available from our web site:
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol>
Best regards, Julian
- snip -
Appendix A. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
A.1 Since draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-02
Julian Reschke takes editorial role (added to authors list). Cleanup
XML indentation. Start adding all unresolved last call issues.
Update some author's contact information. Update references, split
into "normative" and "informational". Remove non-RFC2616 headers
("Public") from examples. Fixed width problems in artwork. Start
resolving editorial issues.
A.2 Since draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-03
Added Joe Orton and Juergen Reuter to Acknowledgements section.
Close more editorial issues. Remove dependencies on BIND spec.
A.3 Since draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-04
More editorial fixes. Clarify that MKRESOURCE can only be used to
create redirect references (switch to new method in a future draft).
Clarify that redirect references do not have bodies.
A.4 Since draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-05
Close (accept) issue "lc-79-accesscontrol". Add issue "rfc2606-
compliance". Close issues "lc-50-blindredirect", "lc-71-relative",
"lc-74-terminology". Update contact info for Geoff Clemm. Moved
some of the original authors names to new Contributors section. Add
and close issue "9-MKRESOURCE-vs-relative-URI". Close issue "lc-72-
trailingslash". Close issue "lc-60-ex". Update issue "lc-85-301"
with proposal. Close issue "lc-06-reftarget-relative" (9-MKRESOURCE-
vs-relative-URI was a duplicate of this one). Also remove section
9.1 (example for MKRESOURCE vs relative URIs). Add and resolve issue
"11.2-apply-to-redirect-ref-syntax" (header now has values "T" and
"F"). Also some cleanup for "rfc2606-compliance". Typo fixes. Add
and resolve "15.1-options-response".
A.5 Since draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-06
Resolve issues "lc-19-direct-ref", "lc-28-lang", "lc-29-lang", "lc-
44-pseudo", "lc-53-s10", "lc-61-pseudo", "lc-63-move", "lc-80-i18n"
and "rfc2606-compliance". Start work on index. Add new issue
"old_clients".
A.6 Since draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-07
Closed issue "lc-38-not-hierarchical". Cleaned up DTD fragments in
appendix. Close (reject) issues "lc-55-iana" and "lc-41-no-webdav".
Add issue "5_mkresource" and start work on MKREDIRECTREF (issue
closed, but more work on MKREDIRECTREF needs to be done for updates
and status codes other than 302). Start resolution of "lc-85-301",
replacing "302" by more generic language. Update issue "lc-57-
noautoupdate". Close issue "lc-37-integrity" (duplicate of "lc-57-
autoupdate"). Started work on "lc-85-301". Add L. Dusseault and S.
Eissing to Acknowledgments section.
A.7 Since draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-08
Fix index entries for conditions. Open and resolve issue
"specify_safeness". Rewrite editorial section and parts of intro.
Add more clarifications for issue "lc-85-301" and close it.
A.8 Since draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-09
Resolve issues "lc-33-forwarding", "lc-36-server" and "lc-57-
noautoupdate". Close issues "lc-48-s6", "12.1-property-name",
"3-terminology-redirectref" and "lc-58-update". Rearrange section 5
and 6. Add some more terms to index (no change tracking).
A.9 Since draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-10
Add and resolve issues "13_allprop" and "rfc2396bis". Use the term
"Request-URI" throughout (this is what RFC2616 defines). Center some
of the artwork. Add and resolve issue "abnf".
A.10 Since draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-11
Re-open and close issue "anbf" (implied LWS). Raise and close issue
"frag_in_target". Add precondition name for legal reftarget element
contents. Enhance index. Add and close issue "dtd-changes".
Received on Sunday, 29 May 2005 09:59:51 UTC