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.
It seems to me this is a prioritization problem, and I promise to raise
my level of participation if everyone else commits to do the same.
(Although I am a little reluctant as the LAST spec is still sitting in
my office being used as scrap paper - I am on page 62 of 135, I really
should have double sided it)....
As we support Webdav in our Server Product and Client Product (which is
also used by SAP, Oracle, etc) I would like a revision, but one we can
live with.
"Let them have their tartar sauce" - Charles Montgomery Burns
Kevin
From: w3c-dist-auth-request(_at_)w3(_dot_)org
[mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request(_at_)w3(_dot_)org]
On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 12:44 PM
To: Manfred Baedke; Geoffrey M Clemm
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; WebDav
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions
for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard
Julian's draft has been around for a very long time and I think that you
have suggested we just adopt it before so the WG certainly has been
aware of this option. The bulk of this draft has been available to the
WG for many months if not years and the WG did choose to use text out of
parts of this draft.
The WG has almost no people in it at this point and very little energy
to do any work. What you are proposing here is that we could toss out
the current work, and start over with a new individual contributor
document as the base document. At the peak of the WGs productivity, I
would estimate this would take about two years not two months to get to
WGLC. At the current rate of progress I would have to expect
significantly longer.
Cullen <with my WebDav WG chair hat on>
On Jan 19, 2007, at 7:50 AM, Manfred Baedke wrote:
This sounds very sensible to me.
Regards,
Manfred
Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
First, my appreciation to everyone that has participated in the recent
push
to produce a revision of RFC-2518.
I have reviewed rfc2518bis-17, as well as the remaining issues in
bugzilla
and the document:
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest
.html>
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest
.html>
I believe that a significantly better document could be produced within
the
next 2 months, based on reschcke document.
I would like to see action on the current bis document be deferred for
that period of time, with the explicit goal of giving the working group
an opportunity to evaluate and express a preference between the two
alternatives.
We'll be living with the rfc2518bis document for a long time, so I
believe
this extra two months would be time well spent.
Cheers,
Geoff
Julian wrote on 01/15/2007 11:42:50 AM:
The IESG schrieb:
The IESG has received a request from the WWW Distributed Authoring
and Versioning WG (webdav) to consider the following document:
- 'HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV '
<draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-17.txt> as a Proposed Standard
...
...
At the time of this writing, there were over fifty issues opened
against the specification (see <http://ietf.osafoundation.org:
8080/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?product=WebDAV-RFC2518-bis>). For many of
them there were suggestions resolving the problems with spec-ready
text (all mention some of them later on).
...
For many of the open issues there *are* proposals how to resolve
them. The recommended changes are recorded both in the issue tracker
(<
http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?
product=WebDAV-RFC2518-bis>) and an experimental draft available at <
file:///C:/projects/xml2rfc/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html
<file:///C:\projects\xml2rfc\draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html
. The latter does not resolve *all* open issues *yet*, mainly in an
attempt to keep the differences to the Working Group's document to a
manageable size.
So I would appreciate if reviewers not only take a look at RFC2518
and the Last Call draft, but also to the resources above.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf