Re: Process on open RFC2518bis issues

I agree with all of Julian's comments below.

Cheers,
Geoff


Julian wrote on 01/06/2006 05:15:59 AM:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> here's a comment on how I see the working group's process, understanding 

> that there are only a few weeks left allocated for completion.
> 
> - The drafts that the WG publish lag behind; for instance, changes that 
> we have agreed upon in early December do not show up in draft 09 (mid 
> December) and draft 10 (end December).
> 
> - We are spending a lot of time discussing questions that don't even 
> have a corresponding entry in the issue tracker. I would propose that 
> for the time being, we restrict all discussions and changes to (1) 
> issues that have been entered before today and (2) problems with changes 

> in RFC2518bis as compared to RFC2518. For the working group to consider 
> any other question relevant enough for RFC2518bis, there should be a 
> broad consensus to discuss it in the given time frame.
> 
> - There are a few issues that obviously are "hard", and where we haven't 

> made any progress in the last few weeks. A good example is the 
> discussion about new requirements for ETag handling (which is a 
> normative change compared to RFC2518). Unless somebody can explain why 
> it's likely that we can resolve these issues between now and the end of 
> the month, I propose to stop the discussion for now (as far as it 
> affects RFC2518bis), and to back out any text that normatively changes 
> the protocol.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Julian
>