At 1:36 PM -0800 1/19/07, Kevin Wiggen wrote:
I think what the spec needs is some love and attention. If enough of us (and
I will volunteer to READ and COMMENT) spend time on this, I think we can come
to some sort of resolution. I would hate to see the work done by the working
group, Geoff, Julian, Lisa, etc go to waste.
I would also hate to see the work of this working group go to waste. But I do
believe that an additional two months, starting with a document that is not
up to date or the product of working group discussion, is at all a practical
time estimate. As its Area Advisor, I gave this working group a six month
time line to finish its work eighteen months ago. The last three months of
that period saw more significant activity than the working group had had
in the previous year. Close to the deadline, Cullen asked that the WG be
extended as there were a few final issues that needed resolution.
We are now almost a year on from that point. Suggesting that an additional
two months would resolve things is, bluntly, completely contrary to the
experience of this WG.
The first draft of this document was issued *five years ago*. If it is better
than 2518, it is time to push it out the door and making a new line in the
Too much of what to do with webdav is now "lore" in the heads of the
current implementors and unavailable without sifting through the WG
archives. I believe getting this document out will help, even if it does not
the problem completely or meet its original goal (to get to Draft Standard).
That doesn't preclude there ever being a 2518ter or a Draft Standard here.
But with the current inputs, we are well past the point of diminishing returns.
Getting this document out as a Proposed Standard seems to me, both personally
and as the working group's area advisor, the best balance of retaining the work
that has been done and setting the stage for eventual further work.
Ietf mailing list