- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 19:32:15 +0200
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Lisa Dusseault wrote: > > I agree with adding the proposed wording (except note "it's" needs no > apostrophe), however I don't consider it sufficient unless BIND builds > on RFC2518bis where we can make these definitions clear. OK, to summarize: Lisa prefers to either delay BIND (by making it depend on RFC2518bis), or to duplicate explanations (that will need to go into RFC2518bis anyway). Geoff and I think that the draft as currently proposed is clear enough, and that none of the alternatives proposed by Lisa are better (Geoff, you'll correct me if I'm wrong here). At this point I propose that the WG makes a decision on this; it seems that all arguments have been exchanged on this and we really have more important work to do. Speaking of which: - What is the current RFC2518bis issues list (<http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?product=WebDAV-RFC2518-bis>, <http://www.webdav.org/wg/rfcdev/issues.htm> or something else?), and who is maintaining it? - Is there a document change history that tracks all changes that have been made in the last (expired) draft (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-06.txt>) compared to RFC2518? - Are there any plans to actually start working on the draft again? Is there anything holding us back besides the three WGLCs we're just finishing? Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 17:32:27 UTC