Re: openpbx-trunk 'make' fails @ "Undefined symbols: _opbx_module_user_add"

Howdy,
	The Secretariat will announce this more formally on
Monday,
but I wanted to let the working group know that the IESG's
evaluation
of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-18.txt was positive.  There
was considerable
discussion in the weeks leading up to today's telechat about
how
to handle the combination of concerns (issues raised, length
of process,
number of active contributors).  Lisa and Cullen recused
themselves from
the IESG ballot (as author and WG chair), and the single
DISCUSS from Russ
was resolved in conversation.
	The end result of the ballot represents consensus among the
IESG that
the current document was sufficiently solid to be published
as Proposed Standard,
that there were enough improvements in it to replace 2518,
and that the work
needed a checkpoint.  This last is, honestly, a management
issue as much as a
standards one; by putting a stake in the ground that says: 
"further discussions
start from here", you can avoid the energy for progress
evaporating in discussions
that recycle around the same few hot spots.  To highlight
that aspect, I have
added this to the write-up for publication:

>There does remain some dissent that this document is the
best that could
>be achieved, and there were proposals to continue work
based on other
>starting points. The number of  contributors committed
to that course of
>action was, however, smaller than would be normal for an
active working
>group.  Publication of this document provides  a
checkpoint of improvements to
>serve as the basis of implementation and potential later
work.  It does
>not close off later improvement.

	So, what are the steps from here?   The Secretariat will
make an
announcement that the document was approved some time early
next week.  Shortly following that, I will ask them to close
the working group
as a formal entity.  The working group mailing list will
remain open, and I
expect that the documents currently in pipeline (such as
webdav-search) which
have been informally last-called here will go forward as
individual submissions.
Until Lisa has returned from maternity leave, those will go
through Chris Newman,
who will succeed me at the end of the Prague meeting. 
	I want to highlight that I personally and the IESG
generally continues
to believe in the value of the work on WebDAV.  Publishing
this document and
closing this incarnation of the working group are not
actions intended to cut off
further work.  They are efforts to make sure we capture the
work that has been
done and to ensure that future work is not burdened with the
baggage of a working
group whose deliverables have stretched out long past any
deadline set.
	My thanks to everyone for all the hard work put in on this
and for
the willingness to put the end goals ahead of individual
preferences for one
form or another.  I look forward to seeing some of you in
Prague and in Chicago
as the IETF considers a 2616bis WG.
	Congratulations on the achievement of this milestone and,
please,
accept my regards,

					Ted Hardie

We are closing this bug report as it lacks the information,
described in
the previous comments, we need to investigate the problem
further.
However, please reopen it if you can give us the missing
information and
don't hesitate to submit bug reports in the future.

** Changed in: ubiquity (Ubuntu)
       Status: Needs Info => Confirmed

** Changed in: ubiquity (Ubuntu)
       Status: Confirmed => Rejected

-- 
Installer crashed
https://launchpad.ne
t/bugs/77612

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugslists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Hi Ted,

thanks for the information.

It's a pity that RFC2518bis as of draft 18 isn't better --
lots of 
issues have been raised before and during the Last Calls,
and only some 
of them have been fixed, although proposed resolutions for
many of them 
were available.

In particular, it's kind of embarrassing that the WG has a
second 
document in the pipeline (draft-ietf-webdav-bind-17) which
already has 
to fix a bug in RFC2518bis - a bug that has been reported
over half a 
year ago (see 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webda
v/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-17.html#rfc.section.A>).

That being said I *do* agree with the decision to close the
working 
group, as the previous years have clearly shown that the
WG's 
productivity wasn't as good as it should have been.

Looking forward to submitting SEARCH and BIND, and then to
go on working 
on RFC2518bisbis, RFC3253bis and RFC3744bis as private
submissions.

Best regards, Julian

On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 20:35 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:

<snip>

> That being said I *do* agree with the decision to close
the working 
> group, as the previous years have clearly shown that
the WG's 
> productivity wasn't as good as it should have been.
> 
> Looking forward to submitting SEARCH and BIND, and then
to go on working 
> on RFC2518bisbis, RFC3253bis and RFC3744bis as private
submissions.

about nine months ago, i posted about using email over web
dav as an
IMAP replacement
(http://www.nabble.com/email-
over-webDAV-as-IMAP-replacement--tf1897019.html#a5208546
).
  i received helpful and friendly replies. 

i'm still interested in this area (and have found that there
are other
people also interested in this problem). i had hoped to come
back to
this group with questions once i had an experimental client
and server
coded. (realistically, this would be a few months off.)

in light of the pending closure of this working group, does
anyone have
updated advice for me?

- robert

Hi robert,

--On March 10, 2007 9:55:20 PM +0000 robert burrell donkin 
<robertburrelldonkinblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>> Looking forward to submitting SEARCH and BIND, and
then to go on working
>> on RFC2518bisbis, RFC3253bis and RFC3744bis as
private submissions.
>
> about nine months ago, i posted about using email over
web dav as an
> IMAP replacement
> (http://www.nabble.com/email-over-webDAV-
as-IMAP-replacement--tf1897019.h
> tml#a5208546).   i received helpful and friendly
replies.
>
> i'm still interested in this area (and have found that
there are other
> people also interested in this problem). i had hoped to
come back to
> this group with questions once i had an experimental
client and server
> coded. (realistically, this would be a few months
off.)
>
> in light of the pending closure of this working group,
does anyone have
> updated advice for me?

Continue discussion on this list. The mailing list will not
go away even 
though the IETF working group has closed now. You can work
on this effort 
as an individual submission to the IETF (i.e. one not done
under the 
auspices of a working group).

PS I would be interested in helping out in such an effort,
having spent a 
long time in the IMAP world, and more lately in the WebDAV
world with 
CalDAV and CardDAV. However, don't call it an IMAP
"replacement" - just as 
IMAP is not a replacement for POP, this would not be a
replacement for IMAP 
which has been around for a long time and is fairly well
entrenched in a 
number of areas. Better would be to describe it as an
"alternative" to IMAP 
and POP. Just as many sites today run POP and IMAP services
together, 
chances are a WebDAV-email service will be run along side
the others too - 
assuming it provides some benefits for those that want it.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

Did you have a look at the WebDAV interface of MS Exchange
Server?

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa579087.aspx


It is used by OWA (Outlook WebAccess).

Cheers,
Konstantin



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: w3c-dist-auth-requestw3.org
[mailto:w3c-dist-auth-requestw3.org] Im
Auftrag von robert burrell donkin
Gesendet: Samstag, 10. März 2007 22:55
An: w3c-dist-authw3.org
Betreff: redux: email-over-webDAV-as-IMAP-replacement [WAS
Re: RFC2518bis]


On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 20:35 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:

<snip>

> That being said I *do* agree with the decision to close
the working 
> group, as the previous years have clearly shown that
the WG's 
> productivity wasn't as good as it should have been.
> 
> Looking forward to submitting SEARCH and BIND, and then
to go on working 
> on RFC2518bisbis, RFC3253bis and RFC3744bis as private
submissions.

about nine months ago, i posted about using email over web
dav as an
IMAP replacement
(http://www.nabble.com/email-over-webD
AV-as-IMAP-replacement--tf1897019.html
#a5208546).
  i received helpful and friendly replies. 

i'm still interested in this area (and have found that there
are other
people also interested in this problem). i had hoped to come
back to
this group with questions once i had an experimental client
and server
coded. (realistically, this would be a few months off.)

in light of the pending closure of this working group, does
anyone have
updated advice for me?

- robert

On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 08:19 +0100, Konstantin Breu wrote:
> Did you have a look at the WebDAV interface of MS
Exchange Server?
> 
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa579087.aspx


definitely not 

this arises from an interest in RESTful email protocols
supporting rich
meta data 

- robert

On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 00:18 -0500, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Hi robert,

hi cyrus

> --On March 10, 2007 9:55:20 PM +0000 robert burrell
donkin 
> <robertburrelldonkinblueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> 
> >> Looking forward to submitting SEARCH and BIND,
and then to go on working
> >> on RFC2518bisbis, RFC3253bis and RFC3744bis as
private submissions.
> >
> > about nine months ago, i posted about using email
over web dav as an
> > IMAP replacement
> > (http://www.nabble.com/email-over-webDAV-
as-IMAP-replacement--tf1897019.h
> > tml#a5208546).   i received helpful and friendly
replies.
> >
> > i'm still interested in this area (and have found
that there are other
> > people also interested in this problem). i had
hoped to come back to
> > this group with questions once i had an
experimental client and server
> > coded. (realistically, this would be a few months
off.)
> >
> > in light of the pending closure of this working
group, does anyone have
> > updated advice for me?
> 
> Continue discussion on this list. The mailing list will
not go away even 
> though the IETF working group has closed now. You can
work on this effort 
> as an individual submission to the IETF (i.e. one not
done under the 
> auspices of a working group).

cool

> PS I would be interested in helping out in such an
effort, having spent a 
> long time in the IMAP world, and more lately in the
WebDAV world with 
> CalDAV and CardDAV. 

sounds great 

> However, don't call it an IMAP "replacement"
- just as 
> IMAP is not a replacement for POP, this would not be a
replacement for IMAP 
> which has been around for a long time and is fairly
well entrenched in a 
> number of areas. Better would be to describe it as an
"alternative" to IMAP 
> and POP. Just as many sites today run POP and IMAP
services together, 
> chances are a WebDAV-email service will be run along
side the others too - 
> assuming it provides some benefits for those that want
it.

true

when i posted the original, i was thinking along the lines
of
replacement but i've been helping out on an IMAP
implementation for some
months now and that's deepened my understanding of the
problem area. it
is really an alternative.

- robert