|
List Info
Thread: RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV)
|
|
| RE: Last Call:
draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP
Extensions for Distributed Authoring
- WebDAV) |
|
2007-01-19 15:36:28 |
|
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 sauce̶1; – Charles Montgomery
Burns
Kevin
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>
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>) and an experimental draft available at
<
> 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.
|
| RE: Last Call:
draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP
Extensions for Distributed Authoring -
WebDAV) to |
|
2007-01-19 16:16:26 |
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
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 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).
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.
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf ietf.org
https://w
ww1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|
| Re: Last Call:
draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP
Extensions for Distributed
Authoring - WebDAV |
|
2007-01-23 07:46:02 |
|
|
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
).
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
).
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
|
[1-3]
|
|
. For many of
</tt><br>
<tt>&<wbr>gt; them there were suggestion<wbr>s resolving the problems with spec-ready<wbr> </tt><br>
<tt>> text (all mention some of them later on).</tt><br>
<tt>&<wbr>gt; </tt><br>
<tt>> ...</tt><br>
<tt>&g<wbr>t; </tt><br>
<tt>> For many of the open issues there *are* proposals how to resolve </tt><br>
<tt>> them. The recommende<wbr>d changes are recorded both in the issue tracker
(<wbr><</tt><br>
<tt>&g<wbr>t; <a href=){kind=link}