Re: WGLC draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-12

The main flaw in the REDIRECT proposal is that there is not enough in 
the way of plans to implement it.  Without a set of independent 
implementors around to review it, I fear it's too complex or has missed 
key interoperability issues. 

To be clear, I do understand that the Web needs and uses redirects, and 
I see that administrators do create them and that browsers follow 
redirect status codes.  I'm arguing that there isn't a clear need for 
interoperable authoring of redirect resources, or if there is, it's not 
met by this specification.  Implementors might tell us, for example, 
that they don't need the ability to modify a redirect (why not just 
recreate) or that they'd prefer something which could handle redirecting 
URLs via pattern matching to another set of calculated URLs.

There seems to be one organization that implements REDIRECT authoring in 
a potentially-interoperable way -- I believe that's Julian's 
organization. I think that's great, and even better that they're 
interested in publishing the way they do it so that others can do the 
same.  I just don't believe that meets the bar for a standards-track 
RFC, because we've learned in the IETF that actual implementor review is 
very important to writing good, clear, simple standards that people need.

OSAF-specific stuff: We do not have plans to implement redirect in Cosmo 
or Chandler (server or client), neither to create redirects, allow them 
to be created, or add logic to allow for redirects existing on other 
WebDAV servers.  We're more interested, potentially, in using bindings.

Lisa


Cullen Jennings wrote:

>I would like to start working group last call
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-1
>2.txt
>
>This WGCL will end on July 4th so please have your comments emailed to this
>list before then.
>
>Thank you, Cullen
>
>
>  
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 02:07:24 UTC