Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

[Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com>]

On Jan 19, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Cullen,
>
> I was tempted to finish that mail with "and thanks for the fish",  
> in honor of Douglas Adams, but I resisted.

lol :-)

> Anyway, please understand that I don't want to make your or Ted's  
> life harder than it needs to be. I just feel that the document is  
> not good.

I know you are not trying to make anyones life hard and you are just  
trying to get this document to be right. I agree with you that the  
document has many problems and could be much better. I think that is  
important that you say it is not good if that is what you feel.  
However, I do think that it is better than rfc2518 and I am totally  
convinced given the last 18 months that this WG is not capable of  
making significant advances to this document. Perhaps I am just the  
wrong person and the folks in this WG are just too burned out  to  
drive more forward progress on this document. I hope someone does try  
to do something better than this draft, but given where we are today,  
I think we should publish this while waiting for the next thing.

> .
>
> I'd also *really* like to understand why it seems to me that some  
> voices on the mailing list are taken more seriously than others,  
> or, for that matter, why anonymous feedback during the IETF Last  
> Call obviously is more seriously considered than all the feedback  
> that *did* arrive on the mailing list.

The working group takes some people more seriously than others. For  
example, if you say "that will break several existing  
implementation," most people in the WG believe that much more than if  
I said it". That's good - you have much ore experience with the  
deployed system and it is typical for a WG to have some leaders that  
others look to for their advice and opinions. Ten seconds of looking  
at the archives will convince anyone that some people look to your  
opinion. I'm sure I can't count the number of "I agree with Julian"  
emails I have seen. However don't confuse that with what happens when  
trying to judge consensus - as a chair in trying to judge consensus,  
I do listen to everyone. The biggest problem in this WG is often so  
few people comment on anythiFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org Sat Jan 20 15:13:36 2007
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1H8MRH-00007W-C4; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:03:47 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
	by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H8MRG-0008Uy-3d
	for ietf at ietf.org; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:03:46 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87])
	by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H8MRE-0005Hw-PC
	for ietf at ietf.org; Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:03:46 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195])
	by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2007 12:03:44 -0800
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237])
	by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l0KK3i0p010043; 
	Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:03:44 -0800
Received: from [10.255.254.191] (sjc-vpn-hwcore-12.cisco.com [10.21.152.12])
	by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l0KK3cDk018438;
	Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:03:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <45B130ED.3030404 at gmx.de>
References: <OFA10C31FA.3EC10616-ON85257268.00000EE2-85257268.00018E9A at us.ibm.com>
	<45B0E8E2.4010202 at greenbytes.de>
	<86D3E2F6-69D5-47E9-A5B3-01AA9E74B9D1 at cisco.com>
	<45B130ED.3030404 at gmx.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Message-Id: <E1A04DA8-226F-46B0-AB25-1132D32E9AAB at cisco.com>
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:03:29 -0800
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3275; t=1169323424;
	x=1170187424; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002;
	h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
	d=cisco.com; i=fluffy at cisco.com;
	z=From:=20Cullen=20Jennings=20<fluffy at cisco.com>
	|Subject:=20Re=3A=20Last=20Call=3A=20draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis=20(HTTP
	=20Extensions=20for=20Distributed=20Authoring=20-=20WebDAV)=20to=20Propose
	d=20Standard |Sender:=20;
	bh=Yv5PzGMMxNDLsQQIM5NZqXOjACFkuM4QIDeLgrKQ0XU=;
	b=O2tkYZV8Lz1z1zPxRGDVvatBmssKplgHitKmr9kABX7+9FsIeNmvr0TSsfs+RJOqNiH7KyKB
	WAn1pJzHlGCjJVD+Vd+YPePRAdcGCn3LsxmgZHoNqrC33FlGm3ww6FyN;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=fluffy at cisco.com; dkim=pass (
	sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); 
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17
Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm at us.ibm.com>,
	Manfred Baedke <manfred.baedke at greenbytes.de>, ietf at ietf.org,
	WebDav <w3c-dist-auth at w3.org>
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for
	Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0629354877=="
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org


--===============0629354877==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-12--109834736


--Apple-Mail-12--109834736
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed


I certainly consider Geoff and Manfred part of the WG.  I don't think  
any of these were ignored my Lisa or me, I've read everyone one of  
them several times. I think that for WG did not come to consensus to  
adopt these into the WG draft.


Cullen <with my webdav WG chair hat on>


On Jan 19, 2007, at 12:58 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> the only reason why "my" draft doesn't contain resolutions for all  
> (instead of many) open issues is that at some point of time, it  
> didn't seem to matter anymore, as the proposals basically were  
> ignored by you and the editor. Should this change, I could and  
> would finish it.
>
> BTW: it seems that you don't consider Geoff or Manfreng that even if they all agree it's such  
a small fraction of the WG that it is hard to call it consensus.

> So, again, thanks for the Sushi that I really enjoyed. Hopefully  
> you'll consider my work on the IMPP-vcard draft as sort of payback.

I'm very thankful for the work you did on IMPP-vcard. It was  
something that I was never going to mange to finish. Likewise, don't  
take the lack of ability to come to agreement  on a much better  
version of 2518bis to be reflective of everything that is happening  
at IETF. This is basically the problem of a WG with so few people  
willing to even review comments and it's too small to really  
effectively function as a WG. You have a ton of expertise in XML,  
DAV, schema and lots of other things that IETF is doing active work  
in. Come to Prague and meet the people working on them and check out  
some of the more vibrant and less frustrating work the Wbdav.

> Best regards, Julian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf





d to be part  
> of the WG. I'd really like to understand how one could come to that  
> point of view (I'll remind everybody that Geoff is one of the  
> authors of many WebDAV RFCs, and that Manfred has offered a  
> complete rewrite of the locking sections a few months ago).


--Apple-Mail-12--109834736
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=ISO-8859-1

<HTML><BODY style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; =
-khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><BR =
class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>I=A0certainly consider Geoff and =
Manfred part of the WG.=A0 I don't think any of these were ignored my =
Lisa or me, I've read everyone one of them several times. I think that =
for WG did not come to consensus to adopt these into the WG =
draft.=A0<DIV><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR =
class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Cullen &lt;with my webdav =
WG chair hat on&gt;</DIV><DIV><BR =
class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On Jan 19, =
2007, at 12:58 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:</DIV><BR =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><P =
style=3D"margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; =
min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style=3D"margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px =
0.0px"><FONT face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"3" style=3D"font: 12.0px =
Helvetica">the only reason why "my" draft doesn't contain resolutions =
for all (instead of many) open issues is that at some point of time, it =
didn't seem to matter anymore, as the proposals basically were ignored =
by you and the editor. Should this change, I could and would finish =
it.</FONT></P> <P style=3D"margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px =
Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style=3D"margin: 0.0px 0.0px =
0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face=3D"Helvetica" size=3D"3" style=3D"font: 12.0px =
Helvetica">BTW: it seems that you don't consider Geoff or Manfred to be =
part of the WG. I'd really like to understand how one could come to that =
point of view (I'll remind everybody that Geoff is one of the authors of =
many WebDAV RFCs, and that Manfred has offered a complete rewrite of the =
locking sections a few months ago).</FONT></P> <P style=3D"margin: 0.0px =
0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> =
</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>=

--Apple-Mail-12--109834736--


--===============0629354877==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

--===============0629354877==--