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

[Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm at us.ibm.com>]

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