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>). 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
> >. 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@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf