Ted Hardie schrieb:
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 not
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
Ted, could you please elaborate why you think the document is not "up to
date"? It is based on draft 17, and during the past year, I've made sure
that any change that has been applied to the WG draft has been applied
to my document as well (see
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#changes.compared.to.rfc2518bis>).
Also, it *is* a result of working group discussion, in that it proposes
resolutions to issues that the WG has brought up. No, it doesn't
necessarily reflect *consensus*, but nor does the WG draft, I'd say.
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
And you were right in doing so, as the WG had been making no noticeable
progress for a very long time before; a fact that I complained about
often enough.
Unfortunately, the first three months of that period were lost as well,
and that's a shame (see for instance
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JulSep/0027.html>).
To make things worse, after the WG last call eleven months ago most
issues that were raised have been left unfixed, although resolutions for
many of them were made.
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.
You are right, but just in the case as the WG continues to work the way
it did before.
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 sand.
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
solve
the problem completely or meet its original goal (to get to Draft Standard).
Well, it's IMHO a bad idea to push out a document with known *bugs*, in
particular if it's easy to fix them. I will start an errata list right
away (just like I did for RFC3648/3744), but the *right* thing to do
would be not to publish the document knowing about these problems.
That doesn't preclude there ever being a 2518ter or a Draft Standard here.
I care a lot about a specification that is correct, and a bit less about
it's status in the standards ladder. So it seems to me that work on a
revision will have to start right away, no matter whether there's an
IETF WG or not.
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.
I would agree if the current document wasn't fixable. But it is.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf