From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Thu Mar 3 05:32:21 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04488 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 05:32:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1D6nao-0003cV-1C for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:30:06 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1D6nOl-0008SE-C9 for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:17:39 +0000 Received: from mx.newgen.co.in ([202.131.146.227] helo=newgen.co.in) by lisa.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1D6nOj-0005Mz-1U for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:17:39 +0000 Received: (qmail 29518 invoked by uid 504); 3 Mar 2005 10:21:52 -0000 Received: from parvathik@newgen.co.in by mx.newgen.co.in by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.21 (fireav: ???. Clear:RC:0(202.140.41.205):. Processed in 2.412909 secs); 03 Mar 2005 10:21:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ngmail.newgen.co.in) (okhlaoffice@202.140.41.205) by mx.newgen.co.in.146.131.202.in-addr.arpa with SMTP; 3 Mar 2005 10:21:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 15607 invoked by uid 504); 3 Mar 2005 10:10:22 -0000 Received: from parvathik@newgen.co.in by ngmail.newgen.co.in by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.21 (fireav: ???. Clear:RC:1(192.168.5.141):. Processed in 2.139949 secs); 03 Mar 2005 10:10:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO parvathi) (192.168.5.141) by 192.168.5.243 with SMTP; 3 Mar 2005 10:10:20 -0000 Message-ID: <21ea01c51fd8$30d85c90$8d05a8c0@parvathi> Reply-To: "Parvathi K" From: "Parvathi K" To: Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:32:56 +0530 Organization: Newgen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_21E7_01C52006.462B42A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received-SPF: none (lisa.w3.org: domain of parvathik@newgen.co.in does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Question on WebDAV usage from Web X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/21ea01c51fd8$30d85c90$8d05a8c0@parvathi Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9513 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:30:06 +0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_21E7_01C52006.462B42A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Everybody, I want to access some documents in a WebDAV folder using my web = application. The word document or xls document to be accessed is in a WebDAV folder. = I want to provide option for the user to open, edit and save the = documents in the webdav folder through my web application. The document = names are displayed in a web page and when user clicks on the document = name, the document is opened from the webdav folder in a new browser = window - the document is opened using word plugin of IE. Now after user = makes some changes when user clicks on 'Save' button word tries to save = the document in its temporary folder rather in the Web DAV folder. I do = not want the user to use the 'Save As' option of word to save the = document in web dav folder. Kindly let me know what extra handling i = should make so that the MS Word active x component shall open the = document as if it is opening it from Web Dav Folder. When the document is opened from IE using 'Open as Web Fodler' option, = word allows to save the changes in web folder with simply 'Save' option. = I want to simulate the same method when user opens the document using my = web application. Please let me know how is this possible.=20 Best Regards, Parvathi ------=_NextPart_000_21E7_01C52006.462B42A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Everybody,
 
I want to access some documents in a = WebDAV folder=20 using my web application.
 
The word document or xls document to be = accessed is=20 in a WebDAV folder. I want to provide option for the user to open, edit = and save=20 the documents in the webdav folder through my web application. The = document=20 names are displayed in a web page and when user clicks on the document = name, the=20 document is opened from the webdav folder in a new browser window - the = document=20 is opened using word plugin of IE. Now after user makes some changes = when user=20 clicks on 'Save' button word tries to save the document in its temporary = folder=20 rather in the Web DAV folder. I do not want the user to use the 'Save = As' option=20 of word to save the document in web dav folder. Kindly let me know what = extra=20 handling i should make so that the MS Word active x component shall open = the=20 document as if it is opening it from Web Dav Folder.
 
When the document is opened from IE = using 'Open as=20 Web Fodler' option, word allows to save the changes in web folder with = simply=20 'Save' option. I want to simulate the same method when user opens the = document=20 using my web application.
 
Please let me know how is this = possible.=20
Best Regards,
Parvathi
Disclaimer :- This e-mail message including any attachment may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. It should not be used by who is not the original intended recipient. If you have erroneously received this message, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, coping, altering or disclosing the content of this message. Please delete it immediately and notify the sender. Newgen Software Technologies Ltd and / or its subsidiary Companies accept no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus and further acknowledges that any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and no binding nature of the message shall be implied or assumed unless the sender does so expressly with due authority of Newgen Software Technologies Ltd and / or its subsidiary Companies, as applicable. ------=_NextPart_000_21E7_01C52006.462B42A0-- From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Fri Mar 4 04:14:20 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA17356 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 04:14:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D78qU-0003Aa-Io for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:11:42 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D78qS-00039Q-0u for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:11:40 +0000 Received: from imap.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by lisa.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D78qR-0001WW-MQ for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:11:39 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Mar 2005 09:11:04 -0000 Received: from pD9E51143.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.3]) (217.229.17.67) by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 04 Mar 2005 10:11:04 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <42282622.3040503@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:10:58 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Parvathi K CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org References: <21ea01c51fd8$30d85c90$8d05a8c0@parvathi> In-Reply-To: <21ea01c51fd8$30d85c90$8d05a8c0@parvathi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Question on WebDAV usage from Web X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/42282622.3040503@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9514 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:11:42 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Parvathi K wrote: > Hi Everybody, > > I want to access some documents in a WebDAV folder using my web application. > > The word document or xls document to be accessed is in a WebDAV folder. > I want to provide option for the user to open, edit and save the > documents in the webdav folder through my web application. The document > names are displayed in a web page and when user clicks on the document > name, the document is opened from the webdav folder in a new browser > window - the document is opened using word plugin of IE. Now after user > makes some changes when user clicks on 'Save' button word tries to save > the document in its temporary folder rather in the Web DAV folder. I do > not want the user to use the 'Save As' option of word to save the > document in web dav folder. Kindly let me know what extra handling i > should make so that the MS Word active x component shall open the > document as if it is opening it from Web Dav Folder. > > When the document is opened from IE using 'Open as Web Fodler' option, > word allows to save the changes in web folder with simply 'Save' option. > I want to simulate the same method when user opens the document using my > web application. > > Please let me know how is this possible. > Best Regards, Whether or not Office opens a document read-only (as above) or read-write depends on the particular Office version and possibly some local settings on the client. As far as I can tell, there's nothing a server can do to enforce a particular behaviour of the client. That being said; if it's ok to send HTML + JScript, an HTML page sent by the server may be able to directly instantiate Word and let it open directly the document. Never have done this myself, though. Hope this helps, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Fri Mar 4 04:15:06 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA17434 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 04:15:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D78sj-0003zu-CP for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:14:01 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D78si-0003zI-Kn for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:14:00 +0000 Received: from pop.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by bart.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D78si-0002LW-90 for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:14:00 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Mar 2005 09:13:27 -0000 Received: from pD9E51143.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.3]) (217.229.17.67) by mail.gmx.net (mp016) with SMTP; 04 Mar 2005 10:13:27 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <422826B0.6050503@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:13:20 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter.Nevermann@softwareag.com CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org References: <76EEB38C72AE1D4EA2FE2753766EB5148D20A9@DAEMSG03.eur.ad.sag> In-Reply-To: <76EEB38C72AE1D4EA2FE2753766EB5148D20A9@DAEMSG03.eur.ad.sag> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (bart.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Content encoding and MS Word ... X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/422826B0.6050503@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9515 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:14:01 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Peter.Nevermann@softwareag.com wrote: > Hi, > > in a project using Slide/Tamino which I am coaching, XHTML documents are > stored using MS Word, where it is important to know the encoding of the > content. Unfortunately, MS Word 2003 does *not* sent the encoding in the > Content-Type header like: > > Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 > > but only sends the mime-type. As a consequence, the encoding is not > available as part of the value of the DAV:getcontenttype property. > > Has anybody an idea how to make MS Word sending the encoding? > > Thanks & regards, > Peter > > P.S.: As a workaround, I have written a servlet filter to "correct > Word's fault" ... but possibly there is a better solution? As nobody else responded...: no, I'm not aware of any way to fix this. I think this is a bug (unless the document encoding used by Word indeed is the default defined for text/html over HTTP; is it?). Best regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Fri Mar 4 04:20:37 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA18095 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 04:20:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D78y4-0007NG-57 for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:19:32 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D78xz-0007Ku-C5 for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:19:27 +0000 Received: from imap.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by lisa.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D78xy-000335-Vz for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:19:27 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Mar 2005 09:18:54 -0000 Received: from pD9E51143.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.3]) (217.229.17.67) by mail.gmx.net (mp012) with SMTP; 04 Mar 2005 10:18:54 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <422827F8.9050902@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:18:48 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lisa Dusseault CC: Joe Hildebrand , webdav References: <1aef7c87a3636e35da541fba00215c3c@jabber.com> <4204026B.1070104@gmx.de> <420BD326.4090805@gmx.de> <421727CB.1090404@gmx.de> <421F911E.2060607@gmx.de> <404047ae8ff02e72c55e5a8fcd6b8f9b@osafoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <404047ae8ff02e72c55e5a8fcd6b8f9b@osafoundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Status of working group last call on BIND X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/422827F8.9050902@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9516 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 09:19:32 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lisa Dusseault wrote: > > I've limited myself to the role of reviewer on BIND because I wanted to > do a bunch of technical and spec clarity reviews. Normally that's well > within the scope of a chair and in fact expected of them, but it seemed > to be causing some tension in this case so process stuff for BIND is > all in Joe's hands. It would be really nice if the WG chairs could come up with a statement about where we are and what needs to be done to proceed. Last Call ended a month ago; and nothing has happened since. Also note that we're already 8 months behind the schedule outlined in the charter (and that charter has been updated just a year ago). If the expectation is that one of the authors submits the document directly to our Area Director (Ted), that's fine with me. I'd just like to be made aware of it. Best regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Fri Mar 4 05:41:12 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA26988 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:41:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D7ADM-0003ec-Uk for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:39:24 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D7ADH-0003Lm-8v for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:39:19 +0000 Received: from mx.newgen.co.in ([202.131.146.227] helo=newgen.co.in) by lisa.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D7ACo-0000P4-2i for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:38:51 +0000 Received: (qmail 1395 invoked by uid 504); 4 Mar 2005 10:43:09 -0000 Received: from parvathik@newgen.co.in by mx.newgen.co.in by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.21 (fireav: ???. Clear:RC:0(202.140.41.205):. Processed in 2.352396 secs); 04 Mar 2005 10:43:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ngmail.newgen.co.in) (okhlaoffice@202.140.41.205) by mx.newgen.co.in with SMTP; 4 Mar 2005 10:43:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 16393 invoked by uid 504); 4 Mar 2005 10:44:35 -0000 Received: from parvathik@newgen.co.in by ngmail.newgen.co.in by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.21 (fireav: ???. Clear:RC:1(192.168.5.141):. Processed in 2.80139 secs); 04 Mar 2005 10:44:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO parvathi) (192.168.5.141) by 192.168.5.243 with SMTP; 4 Mar 2005 10:44:32 -0000 Message-ID: <005e01c520a6$21d7add0$8d05a8c0@parvathi> Reply-To: "Parvathi K" From: "Parvathi K" To: "Julian Reschke" Cc: References: <21ea01c51fd8$30d85c90$8d05a8c0@parvathi> <42282622.3040503@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 16:07:15 +0530 Organization: Newgen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received-SPF: none (lisa.w3.org: domain of parvathik@newgen.co.in does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Question on WebDAV usage from Web X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/005e01c520a6$21d7add0$8d05a8c0@parvathi Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9517 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:39:24 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Everybody, There are two ways which i know, can be made at the client end to enable users to open word application seperately from a browser window. 1. Change the File Type setting on the Folder Options from explorer and Uncheck the option of opening word in same browser window for MS Office document types. 2. Enable 'Initialzie and script Active X controls not marked as Safe' in the security settings of IE browser. Then using javascript code, we can pass the url of the document to be opened and invoke the office application seperately. But it shall not be a good way to enforce users to make some settings in their browsers to allow web applications invoke some Active X component on the client machine. Moreover even in the above TWO cases, when user opens a document from a WebDAV folder, user is not able to save the document back in the same WebDAV folder by clicking on the SAVE button of MS Office application. Only when the document is opened using IE as 'Open as Web Folder', user is able to make changes to the document and save the document by just clicking on SAVE button. One way that i have found so far is to open a folder using AnchorClick object of Microsoft, as a Web Folder view. But my problem is to open a document from a Web Folder and not a Web Folder. So far i have not found any answer to this. Looking for a response soon, Regards, Parvathi. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julian Reschke" To: "Parvathi K" Cc: Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:40 PM Subject: Re: Question on WebDAV usage from Web > > Parvathi K wrote: > > Hi Everybody, > > > > I want to access some documents in a WebDAV folder using my web application. > > > > The word document or xls document to be accessed is in a WebDAV folder. > > I want to provide option for the user to open, edit and save the > > documents in the webdav folder through my web application. The document > > names are displayed in a web page and when user clicks on the document > > name, the document is opened from the webdav folder in a new browser > > window - the document is opened using word plugin of IE. Now after user > > makes some changes when user clicks on 'Save' button word tries to save > > the document in its temporary folder rather in the Web DAV folder. I do > > not want the user to use the 'Save As' option of word to save the > > document in web dav folder. Kindly let me know what extra handling i > > should make so that the MS Word active x component shall open the > > document as if it is opening it from Web Dav Folder. > > > > When the document is opened from IE using 'Open as Web Fodler' option, > > word allows to save the changes in web folder with simply 'Save' option. > > I want to simulate the same method when user opens the document using my > > web application. > > > > Please let me know how is this possible. > > Best Regards, > > Whether or not Office opens a document read-only (as above) or > read-write depends on the particular Office version and possibly some > local settings on the client. As far as I can tell, there's nothing a > server can do to enforce a particular behaviour of the client. > > That being said; if it's ok to send HTML + JScript, an HTML page sent by > the server may be able to directly instantiate Word and let it open > directly the document. Never have done this myself, though. > > Hope this helps, > > Julian > > -- > bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > Disclaimer :- This e-mail message including any attachment may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information. It should not be used by who is not the original intended recipient. If you have erroneously received this message, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, coping, altering or disclosing the content of this message. Please delete it immediately and notify the sender. Newgen Software Technologies Ltd and / or its subsidiary Companies accept no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus and further acknowledges that any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and no binding nature of the message shall be implied or assumed unless the sender does so expressly with due authority of Newgen Software Technologies Ltd and / or its subsidiary Companies, as applicable. From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Sat Mar 5 05:32:10 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA01129 for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2005 05:32:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D7WXv-0000OM-4y for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:30:07 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D7WXp-00009z-W3 for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:30:02 +0000 Received: from imap.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by bart.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D7WXo-0001Hb-Ir for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:30:00 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 05 Mar 2005 10:29:15 -0000 Received: from pD9E51B16.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.3]) (217.229.27.22) by mail.gmx.net (mp002) with SMTP; 05 Mar 2005 11:29:15 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <422989F3.9030603@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 11:29:07 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lisa Dusseault CC: WebDAV WG References: <6c51b5d867a56b424ab742a28d6abec2@osafoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <6c51b5d867a56b424ab742a28d6abec2@osafoundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (bart.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Meeting in Minneapolis X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/422989F3.9030603@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9518 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:30:07 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lisa Dusseault wrote: > > We've requested a meeting slot in Minneapolis. We're really hoping to > make this meeting valuable to finish off the bindings issues and > unblock/resume/relaunch the work on RFC2518bis. The schedule for the > Minneapolis meeting is going to be finalized earlier than usual this > year, to make it easier for people to plan to attend. > > General meeting info: > http://www.ietf.org/meetings/IETF-62.html I just noticed that there's indeed a meeting scheduled (for Wednesday morning), but I don't remember seeing an agenda or an announcement over here (or somewhere else for that matter). So is the meeting really taking place? Wondering, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Mon Mar 7 00:45:18 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA12496 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 00:45:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D8B1Q-00031Y-5V for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:43:16 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8B1N-000310-IA for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:43:13 +0000 Received: from mxout-03.mxes.net ([205.237.194.34]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8B1N-0001IB-Cz for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:43:13 +0000 Received: from [172.16.1.2] (adsl-67-119-69-243.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [67.119.69.243]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B6651A23; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 00:43:11 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <422032E6.6020701@gmx.de> References: <00e2ac1ef9bcade15ebed6e8af99e779@mnot.net> <421F8BF1.5000902@gmx.de> <422032E6.6020701@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <7452d436c7b23cf4bd1e6945d57b645b@mnot.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Image-Url: http://www.mnot.net/personal/MarkNottingham.jpg From: Mark Nottingham X-Face: }I;hHtiZ43-RK8s{or'?iELJ;!_Mt2|\hW'VcAn*UR#@;4p5@s},~+i=>p})B"gMK%m,`?|Cy>=P/om{?_\aOaPaDMK)TkU_b3]A85YU?A 3iYcf9##+Qu~e(m6w=ot[yfp1G)WXBYGcTM{!EWIB2n/%E@5PjJ_GXq(b2Fq0|#uL{ Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 21:43:11 -0800 To: Julian Reschke X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) Received-SPF: none (lisa.w3.org: domain of mnot@mnot.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: WebDav methods and idempotency X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/7452d436c7b23cf4bd1e6945d57b645b@mnot.net Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9519 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 05:43:16 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hmm, that seems to be revising the semantics of PUT to be non-idempotent; doesn't seem like a good idea... On Feb 26, 2005, at 12:27 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > RFC3253 allows PUT and COPY (target resource) to be auto-versioned. > That is, everytime you PUT to a URI, you may be -- as a side effect -- > creating a new version (and the DeltaV live properties on the resource > will reflect this). Can we still consider this idempotent. RFC3253bis > should say something about this.. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Mon Mar 7 02:32:31 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA10595 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 02:32:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D8Che-0004Hp-OS for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 07:30:58 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8Chb-0004Gs-PS for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 07:30:55 +0000 Received: from imap.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by lisa.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8Chb-0001Zr-EN for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 07:30:55 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Mar 2005 07:30:21 -0000 Received: from pD9E51321.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.2]) (217.229.19.33) by mail.gmx.net (mp015) with SMTP; 07 Mar 2005 08:30:21 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <422C0307.7060704@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:30:15 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Nottingham CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org References: <00e2ac1ef9bcade15ebed6e8af99e779@mnot.net> <421F8BF1.5000902@gmx.de> <422032E6.6020701@gmx.de> <7452d436c7b23cf4bd1e6945d57b645b@mnot.net> In-Reply-To: <7452d436c7b23cf4bd1e6945d57b645b@mnot.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: WebDav methods and idempotency X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/422C0307.7060704@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9520 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 07:30:58 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark Nottingham wrote: > Hmm, that seems to be revising the semantics of PUT to be > non-idempotent; doesn't seem like a good idea... It's IMHO certainly the right thing to do with PUT on version-controlled resources. Let's take a look at the definition (): -- 9.1.2 Idempotent Methods Methods can also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N > 0 identical requests is the same as for a single request. The methods GET, HEAD, PUT and DELETE share this property. Also, the methods OPTIONS and TRACE SHOULD NOT have side effects, and so are inherently idempotent. However, it is possible that a sequence of several requests is non-idempotent, even if all of the methods executed in that sequence are idempotent. (A sequence is idempotent if a single execution of the entire sequence always yields a result that is not changed by a reexecution of all, or part, of that sequence.) For example, a sequence is non-idempotent if its result depends on a value that is later modified in the same sequence. A sequence that never has side effects is idempotent, by definition (provided that no concurrent operations are being executed on the same set of resources). -- So if we'd classify the effect of adding something to the version history the same way as writing something to an audit log, that would be fine. I should also clarify that the issue only occurs for auto-versioned resources. That is, if I explicitly CHECKOUT a resource, do multiple PUTs, then apply CHECKIN, I get exactly one new version (no matter how often PUT was applied). That should be fine, right? Best regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Mon Mar 7 15:51:27 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02382 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:51:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D8P8i-0004C8-I3 for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:47:44 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8OPz-0006dj-Bg for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:01:31 +0000 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by lisa.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8OH1-00089l-Ig for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:52:15 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Mar 2005 19:51:36 -0000 Received: from pD9E623F8.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.4]) (217.230.35.248) by mail.gmx.net (mp011) with SMTP; 07 Mar 2005 20:51:36 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <422CB0C0.7090902@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:51:28 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Proposal for WebDAV WG meeting agenda for 62nd IETF - Minneapolis, MN, USA X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/422CB0C0.7090902@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9521 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:47:44 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, unfortunately, there's still no feedback on whether there actually is a WG meeting in Minneapolis (no announcement, no agenda). In case it *does* take place, here are the details: Time: 2005-03-09T15:00:00Z (9am local time) (ics: Room: Duluth Text confererencing instructions: Audio cast: (see for technical information). Below is a list of topics I'd like to see discussed. Best regards, Julian -- snip -- Proposal for a WebDAV WG meeting agenda I think we need to have a meta-discussion on how the working group currently operates; and also discuss current technical issues with drafts. A. Meta The charter () has been revised just a year ago and we already have missed all milestones. A1. What are the reasons for the apparent inability to ship specs in time? A2. Do we need to re-adjust the charter (again)? A3. Is the Working Group still able to fulfill it's goals, or would it make more sense to let the individual spec authors proceed with their work outside an IETF working group (for instance, the revision to RFC2396 was done that way)? B. Technical Issues B1. BIND As far as I can tell, WG last-call has finished, and the issues that were raised after end of last-call do not qualify as blockers as they have been answered with no feedback and have no votes on them. Thus, draft 11 should have been sent to the IETF for publication (see ). B2. QUOTA This one has been drastically simplified and thus only needs very minor edits for WG last-call. If the WG is really interested in getting it out of the door, the author(s) and the active mailing list members should cooperate to get the remaining issues resolved (last issues list: ). B3. REDIRECT As far as I can tell, we (greenbytes) are the only ones actively working on this (both spec and implementation). I think the spec is very close to be finished; but I would prefer to have it fully implemented before proceeding. B4. RFC2518bis vs separate locking document The latest draft of RFC2518bis has expired and I haven't seen any activity on it for a long time. A statement from the authors would be appreciated. Over a year ago I suggested an alternative approach: split RFC2518 base and locking protocol, then work on RFC2518bis (RFC2518 minus locking) and a separate locking document in parallel. RFC2518bis could probably be published as Draft Standard, while LOCKING (which has most of the changes) would need to re-start as Proposed Standard. The proposed LOCKING document is almost done, and could be finished with the backing of the WG in just a few weeks (see latest edits at ). I hereby ask the Working Group chairs to either fix the apparent process issues with RFC2518bis, or to go with the proposal made by me. B5. PROPERTY DATATYPES The latest draft () has been submitted in September 2004 to the RFC Editor for publication as an Experimental RFC (see status at ). In the meantime I have learned that it's unlikely to be processed (which doesn't mean published) any time soon; this part of the RFC Editor's publication queue more or less is stalled. Alternatives to waiting (at least another year if things progress the same way as in the last months) are (a) making this a WG work item or (b) submitting it to our Area Director. As this draft describes both the consensus of the WG (as far as I can tell) *and* running and deployed code, (b) seems to be very attractive. From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Mon Mar 7 16:25:09 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA05477 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:25:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D8Pi4-0002sY-6f for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:24:16 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8Pi1-0002rg-Oi for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:24:13 +0000 Received: from kahuna.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by bart.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8Pi1-0008Vo-HE for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:24:13 +0000 Old-X-Envelope-From: lisa@osafoundation.org Old-X-Envelope-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Received: from [130.129.67.199] (wired-130-129-67-199.ietf62.ietf.org [130.129.67.199]) (authenticated bits=0) by kahuna.osafoundation.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j27LNKab003946 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:24:04 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) To: webdav WG , IMAP Extensions WG Message-Id: <2a4d858de5a633591504570fefb00eeb@osafoundation.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1-926938022 From: Lisa Dusseault Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:24:00 -0800 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 127.0.0.1 Received-SPF: pass (bart.w3.org: domain of lisa@osafoundation.org designates 204.152.186.98 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Fwd: IESG Document Review Process Update X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/2a4d858de5a633591504570fefb00eeb@osafoundation.org Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9522 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:24:16 +0000 --Apple-Mail-1-926938022 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI Begin forwarded message: > From: "Scott Hollenbeck" > Date: March 7, 2005 9:24:11 AM PST > To: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org, tbray@textuality.com, > april.marine@nominum.com, ggm@apnic.net, rvd2@drummondgroup.com, > mankin@psg.com, rg+ietf@qualcomm.com, andy@hxr.us, > presnick@qualcomm.com, lisa@osafoundation.org, kurt@openLDAP.org, > rlmorgan@washington.edu, gparsons@nortel.com, eburger@brooktrout.com, > ned.freed@mrochek.com, rra@stanford.edu, tony@att.com, > hofmann@bell-labs.com, daboo@isamet.com, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, > rjsparks@nostrum.com, hisham.khartabil@telio.no, > jhildebrand@jabber.com > Cc: "'Ted Hardie'" , sah@428cobrajet.net > Subject: IESG Document Review Process Update > > All Applications Area Working Group chairs: > > Over the last few years the IESG has been looking at ways to improve > our > document review process. The effort is described here: > > http://psg.com/~mrw/PROTO-Team/ > > During today's open apparea meeting I announced that Ted and I will be > using > the PROTO Team process for all new documents brought to us by your > working > groups from now on. That means that you as chairs have a few specific > tasks > to complete as part of the document review process: > > 1. Completing a write-up describing the document that you want the > IESG to > review: > http://psg.com/~mrw/PROTO-Team/WGChair-Writeup.html > > 2. Shepherding resolution of AD review comments: > http://psg.com/~mrw/PROTO-Team/ad-review-draft.txt > > 3. Shepherding resolution of IESG review comments: > http://psg.com/~mrw/PROTO-Team/discuss-draft.txt > > On our end, Ted and I will strive to perform our reviews of your > documents > before or during the IETF last call period. This will hopefully speed > things up a bit once the last call has been completed. > > Please review the material described above and let me know if you have > any > questions. Remember, too, that I am covering all of Ted's working > groups > while he is enjoying paternity leave. > > Feel free to share this with your groups. > > -Scott- > > --Apple-Mail-1-926938022 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FYI Begin forwarded message: 0000,0000,0000From: "Scott Hollenbeck" < 0000,0000,0000Date: March 7, 2005 9:24:11 AM PST 0000,0000,0000To: paul.hoffman@vpnc.org, tbray@textuality.com, april.marine@nominum.com, ggm@apnic.net, rvd2@drummondgroup.com, mankin@psg.com, rg+ietf@qualcomm.com, andy@hxr.us, presnick@qualcomm.com, lisa@osafoundation.org, kurt@openLDAP.org, rlmorgan@washington.edu, gparsons@nortel.com, eburger@brooktrout.com, ned.freed@mrochek.com, rra@stanford.edu, tony@att.com, hofmann@bell-labs.com, daboo@isamet.com, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, rjsparks@nostrum.com, hisham.khartabil@telio.no, jhildebrand@jabber.com 0000,0000,0000Cc: "'Ted Hardie'" <, sah@428cobrajet.net 0000,0000,0000Subject: IESG Document Review Process Update All Applications Area Working Group chairs: Over the last few years the IESG has been looking at ways to improve our document review process. The effort is described here: http://psg.com/~mrw/PROTO-Team/ During today's open apparea meeting I announced that Ted and I will be using the PROTO Team process for all new documents brought to us by your working groups from now on. That means that you as chairs have a few specific tasks to complete as part of the document review process: 1. Completing a write-up describing the document that you want the IESG to review: http://psg.com/~mrw/PROTO-Team/WGChair-Writeup.html 2. Shepherding resolution of AD review comments: http://psg.com/~mrw/PROTO-Team/ad-review-draft.txt 3. Shepherding resolution of IESG review comments: http://psg.com/~mrw/PROTO-Team/discuss-draft.txt On our end, Ted and I will strive to perform our reviews of your documents before or during the IETF last call period. This will hopefully speed things up a bit once the last call has been completed. Please review the material described above and let me know if you have any questions. Remember, too, that I am covering all of Ted's working groups while he is enjoying paternity leave. Feel free to share this with your groups. -Scott- --Apple-Mail-1-926938022-- From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Mon Mar 7 21:15:49 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08125 for ; Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:15:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D8UEo-0005Mb-W3 for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 02:14:23 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8UEm-0005M0-79 for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 02:14:20 +0000 Received: from kahuna.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8UEl-0006aR-W1 for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 02:14:20 +0000 Old-X-Envelope-From: lisa@osafoundation.org Old-X-Envelope-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Received: from [130.129.67.86] (wired-130-129-67-86.ietf62.ietf.org [130.129.67.86]) (authenticated bits=0) by kahuna.osafoundation.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j282ECaa011217 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Mar 2005 18:14:13 -0800 In-Reply-To: <422CB0C0.7090902@gmx.de> References: <422CB0C0.7090902@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <37272b05748555a7f811c8028f7695e4@osafoundation.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org From: Lisa Dusseault Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 18:14:08 -0800 To: Julian Reschke X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 127.0.0.1 Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of lisa@osafoundation.org designates 204.152.186.98 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Proposal for WebDAV WG meeting agenda for 62nd IETF - Minneapolis, MN, USA X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/37272b05748555a7f811c8028f7695e4@osafoundation.org Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9523 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 02:14:22 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There is a meeting, but I didn't get any suggestions for the agenda until now. Thanks for the input and broadcasting this info. Lisa On Mar 7, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Hi, > > unfortunately, there's still no feedback on whether there actually is > a WG meeting in Minneapolis (no announcement, no agenda). > > In case it *does* take place, here are the details: > > Time: 2005-03-09T15:00:00Z (9am local time) (ics: > > > Room: Duluth > > Text confererencing instructions: > > Audio cast: (see > for technical information). > > Below is a list of topics I'd like to see discussed. > > Best regards, Julian > > > -- snip -- > > > > Proposal for a WebDAV WG meeting agenda > > I think we need to have a meta-discussion on how the working group > currently operates; and also discuss current technical issues with > drafts. > > > A. Meta > > The charter () > has been revised just a year ago and we already have missed all > milestones. > > A1. What are the reasons for the apparent inability to ship specs in > time? > > A2. Do we need to re-adjust the charter (again)? > > A3. Is the Working Group still able to fulfill it's goals, or would it > make more sense to let the individual spec authors proceed with their > work outside an IETF working group (for instance, the revision to > RFC2396 was done that way)? > > > B. Technical Issues > > B1. BIND > > As far as I can tell, WG last-call has finished, and the issues that > were raised after end of last-call do not qualify as blockers as they > have been answered with no feedback and have no votes on them. Thus, > draft 11 should have been sent to the IETF for publication (see > 0278.html>). > > B2. QUOTA > > This one has been drastically simplified and thus only needs very > minor edits for WG last-call. If the WG is really interested in > getting it out of the door, the author(s) and the active mailing list > members should cooperate to get the remaining issues resolved (last > issues list: > 0194.html>). > > B3. REDIRECT > > As far as I can tell, we (greenbytes) are the only ones actively > working on this (both spec and implementation). I think the spec is > very close to be finished; but I would prefer to have it fully > implemented before proceeding. > > B4. RFC2518bis vs separate locking document > > The latest draft of RFC2518bis has expired and I haven't seen any > activity on it for a long time. A statement from the authors would be > appreciated. > > Over a year ago I suggested an alternative approach: split RFC2518 > base and locking protocol, then work on RFC2518bis (RFC2518 minus > locking) and a separate locking document in parallel. RFC2518bis could > probably be published as Draft Standard, while LOCKING (which has most > of the changes) would need to re-start as Proposed Standard. The > proposed LOCKING document is almost done, and could be finished with > the backing of the WG in just a few weeks (see latest edits at > latest.html>). I hereby ask the Working Group chairs to either fix the > apparent process issues with RFC2518bis, or to go with the proposal > made by me. > > B5. PROPERTY DATATYPES > > The latest draft > ( datatypes-08.html>) has been submitted in September 2004 to the RFC > Editor for publication as an Experimental RFC (see status at > datatypes>). > > In the meantime I have learned that it's unlikely to be processed > (which doesn't mean published) any time soon; this part of the RFC > Editor's publication queue more or less is stalled. Alternatives to > waiting (at least another year if things progress the same way as in > the last months) are (a) making this a WG work item or (b) submitting > it to our Area Director. As this draft describes both the consensus of > the WG (as far as I can tell) *and* running and deployed code, (b) > seems to be very attractive. > > > > > From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Tue Mar 8 03:54:23 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA29536 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 03:54:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D8aRi-0000h1-PF for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 08:52:06 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8aRg-0000gK-7u for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 08:52:04 +0000 Received: from mail.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by lisa.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8aRf-00065H-Gw for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 08:52:03 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 08 Mar 2005 08:51:30 -0000 Received: from pD9535213.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.2]) (217.83.82.19) by mail.gmx.net (mp012) with SMTP; 08 Mar 2005 09:51:30 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <422D678A.9050802@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:51:22 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lisa Dusseault CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org References: <422CB0C0.7090902@gmx.de> <37272b05748555a7f811c8028f7695e4@osafoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <37272b05748555a7f811c8028f7695e4@osafoundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Proposal for WebDAV WG meeting agenda for 62nd IETF - Minneapolis, MN, USA X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/422D678A.9050802@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9524 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 08:52:06 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lisa Dusseault wrote: > > There is a meeting, but I didn't get any suggestions for the agenda > until now. Thanks for the input and broadcasting this info. > > Lisa With all due respect, it's kind of optimistic to expect others to make suggestions for a meeting that wasn't announced. Working group chairs are expected to post an agenda well before the meeting so that participants can prepare (in particular, to help deciding whether it makes sense to attend at all). As far as I can tell, the final deadline for this IETF meeting was over a week ago (see ). Best regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Tue Mar 8 07:02:00 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA14806 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:02:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D8dOL-0007Gv-SY for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:00:49 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8dOH-0007GE-P6 for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:00:45 +0000 Received: from server3a.software-ag.de ([193.26.193.83]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8dOH-00027D-Kh for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:00:45 +0000 Received: from server3a.software-ag.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.software-ag.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE525703B for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:00:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from DAEMSG03.eur.ad.sag (daemsg03a.eur.ad.sag [10.20.160.61]) by server3a.software-ag.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB9A56FEE for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:00:08 +0100 (CET) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:00:08 +0100 Message-ID: <4A56A7900065A44BB559A2C929597BB7426511@DAEMSG03.eur.ad.sag> Thread-Topic: Order of dead properties Thread-Index: AcUj1l/eFwhZvL6aQVG6KtGDYnrGog== From: To: Received-SPF: none (lisa.w3.org: domain of Heiko.Weber@softwareag.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Order of dead properties X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/4A56A7900065A44BB559A2C929597BB7426511@DAEMSG03.eur.ad.sag Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9525 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:00:49 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello everyone, has anything been said about the order of dead properties so far? When a PROPFIND with DAV:allprop is issued on a resource, should a server return the dead properties in the order in which they where defined, or should the order be arbitrary? Since the element names have to be unique for one resource, I guess it wouldn't make much sense to interpret any logic into the order of the property elements, but since the order of elements in XML documents is defined, some applications might expect the properties in the order in which they were inserted. Any ideas on that? thanks, Heiko =3D=3D=3D Software AG Tamino Development From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Tue Mar 8 10:23:10 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05100 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:23:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D8gWe-0006Bm-5e for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:21:36 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8gWb-0006Ah-6f for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:21:33 +0000 Received: from kahuna.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8gWa-0004Vq-Uk for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:21:33 +0000 Old-X-Envelope-From: lisa@osafoundation.org Old-X-Envelope-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Received: from [130.129.134.132] (wireless-130-129-134-132.ietf62.ietf.org [130.129.134.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by kahuna.osafoundation.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j28FLJaa032220 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:21:21 -0800 In-Reply-To: <4A56A7900065A44BB559A2C929597BB7426511@DAEMSG03.eur.ad.sag> References: <4A56A7900065A44BB559A2C929597BB7426511@DAEMSG03.eur.ad.sag> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <7f1e1e5f013bd49c6712d38ea1aa735c@osafoundation.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: From: Lisa Dusseault Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:21:13 -0800 To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 127.0.0.1 Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of lisa@osafoundation.org designates 204.152.186.98 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Order of dead properties X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/7f1e1e5f013bd49c6712d38ea1aa735c@osafoundation.org Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9526 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:21:36 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In general, WebDAV does not take advantage of the ordering of XML elements when a single element occurs multiple times inside the parent element. As well as allowing any order for the properties of a resource (live or dead), the server may put resources in any order in a Depth 1 or Depth Infinity PROPFIND response. Servers aren't required to take the order of property changes in a PROPPATCH request into effect, either. In some cases the spec explicitly says that order isn't important (e.g. section 8.1, order of resources in PROPFIND response) but in other cases it's silent. Note that DTDs do make XML element order clear but only for elements with different names. When elements might occur multiple times (as with 'response' in 'multistatus') or when the parent element content is ANY, the DTD doesn't say anything about ordering those elements. We'd have to add extraneous text specifically to say what additional ordering is required, and in the absence of that text agents must accept any ordering. Lisa On Mar 8, 2005, at 4:00 AM, wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > has anything been said about the order of dead properties so far? When > a > PROPFIND with DAV:allprop is issued on a resource, should a server > return the dead properties in the order in which they where defined, or > should the order be arbitrary? Since the element names have to be > unique > for one resource, I guess it wouldn't make much sense to interpret any > logic into the order of the property elements, but since the order of > elements in XML documents is defined, some applications might expect > the > properties in the order in which they were inserted. > > Any ideas on that? > > thanks, > Heiko > > === > Software AG > Tamino Development > > From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Tue Mar 8 10:30:15 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06053 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:30:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D8geP-0008Pr-HS for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:29:37 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8geM-0008Ov-Uo for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:29:34 +0000 Received: from imap.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by bart.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8geM-00039b-Ik for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:29:34 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 08 Mar 2005 15:29:01 -0000 Received: from p50825119.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.1.40]) (80.130.81.25) by mail.gmx.net (mp019) with SMTP; 08 Mar 2005 16:29:01 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <422DC4BB.10405@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:28:59 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lisa Dusseault CC: Heiko.Weber@softwareag.com, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org References: <4A56A7900065A44BB559A2C929597BB7426511@DAEMSG03.eur.ad.sag> <7f1e1e5f013bd49c6712d38ea1aa735c@osafoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <7f1e1e5f013bd49c6712d38ea1aa735c@osafoundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (bart.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Order of dead properties X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/422DC4BB.10405@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9527 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:29:37 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lisa Dusseault wrote: > > In general, WebDAV does not take advantage of the ordering of XML > elements when a single element occurs multiple times inside the parent > element. As well as allowing any order for the properties of a resource > (live or dead), the server may put resources in any order in a Depth 1 > or Depth Infinity PROPFIND response. Servers aren't required to take > the order of property changes in a PROPPATCH request into effect, > either. In some cases the spec explicitly says that order isn't Not so. : "Instruction processing MUST occur in the order instructions are received (i.e., from top to bottom)." > ... Best regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Tue Mar 8 10:32:36 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06488 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:32:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D8ggl-0002vD-QG for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:32:03 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8ggi-0002uK-9b for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:32:00 +0000 Received: from imap.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by lisa.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8ggh-00069O-Tm for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:32:00 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 08 Mar 2005 15:31:09 -0000 Received: from p50825119.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.1.40]) (80.130.81.25) by mail.gmx.net (mp016) with SMTP; 08 Mar 2005 16:31:09 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <422DC53B.90206@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:31:07 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Heiko.Weber@softwareag.com CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org References: <4A56A7900065A44BB559A2C929597BB7426511@DAEMSG03.eur.ad.sag> In-Reply-To: <4A56A7900065A44BB559A2C929597BB7426511@DAEMSG03.eur.ad.sag> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Order of dead properties X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/422DC53B.90206@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9528 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:32:03 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Heiko.Weber@softwareag.com wrote: > Hello everyone, > > has anything been said about the order of dead properties so far? When a > PROPFIND with DAV:allprop is issued on a resource, should a server > return the dead properties in the order in which they where defined, or > should the order be arbitrary? Since the element names have to be unique > for one resource, I guess it wouldn't make much sense to interpret any > logic into the order of the property elements, but since the order of > elements in XML documents is defined, some applications might expect the > properties in the order in which they were inserted. > > Any ideas on that? Ordering isn't significant. Is there anything inside RFC2518 that indicates otherwise? Best regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Tue Mar 8 10:35:32 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA07120 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:35:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D8gjX-0003sC-Bf for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:34:55 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8gjV-0003rS-Qo for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:34:53 +0000 Received: from kahuna.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8gjV-0006fn-JJ for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:34:53 +0000 Old-X-Envelope-From: lisa@osafoundation.org Old-X-Envelope-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Received: from [130.129.134.132] (wireless-130-129-134-132.ietf62.ietf.org [130.129.134.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by kahuna.osafoundation.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j28FXtaa000844 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:34:09 -0800 In-Reply-To: <422DC4BB.10405@gmx.de> References: <4A56A7900065A44BB559A2C929597BB7426511@DAEMSG03.eur.ad.sag> <7f1e1e5f013bd49c6712d38ea1aa735c@osafoundation.org> <422DC4BB.10405@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, Heiko.Weber@softwareag.com From: Lisa Dusseault Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:33:50 -0800 To: Julian Reschke X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 127.0.0.1 Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of lisa@osafoundation.org designates 204.152.186.98 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Order of dead properties X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/d04c63a6dc7073c313a0970a172b5cac@osafoundation.org Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9529 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 15:34:55 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Oops... sorry Lisa On Mar 8, 2005, at 7:28 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> In general, WebDAV does not take advantage of the ordering of XML >> elements when a single element occurs multiple times inside the >> parent element. As well as allowing any order for the properties of >> a resource (live or dead), the server may put resources in any order >> in a Depth 1 or Depth Infinity PROPFIND response. Servers aren't >> required to take the order of property changes in a PROPPATCH request >> into effect, either. In some cases the spec explicitly says that >> order isn't > > Not so. > : > > "Instruction processing MUST occur in the order instructions are > received (i.e., from top to bottom)." > >> ... > > Best regards, Julian > > -- > bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Tue Mar 8 11:17:07 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12678 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:17:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D8hNS-00048T-AF for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:16:10 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8hNO-00045V-4v for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:16:06 +0000 Received: from kahuna.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by bart.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8hNN-0004yo-TU for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:16:06 +0000 Old-X-Envelope-From: lisa@osafoundation.org Old-X-Envelope-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Received: from [130.129.134.132] (wireless-130-129-134-132.ietf62.ietf.org [130.129.134.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by kahuna.osafoundation.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j28GFwaa004273 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:16:00 -0800 In-Reply-To: <422D678A.9050802@gmx.de> References: <422CB0C0.7090902@gmx.de> <37272b05748555a7f811c8028f7695e4@osafoundation.org> <422D678A.9050802@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <217146f9e7f4c4f049dcb0d122c6f1c6@osafoundation.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org From: Lisa Dusseault Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:15:54 -0800 To: Julian Reschke X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 127.0.0.1 Received-SPF: pass (bart.w3.org: domain of lisa@osafoundation.org designates 204.152.186.98 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Proposal for WebDAV WG meeting agenda for 62nd IETF - Minneapolis, MN, USA X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/217146f9e7f4c4f049dcb0d122c6f1c6@osafoundation.org Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9530 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:16:10 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit We did announce the upcoming meeting Jan 27, but it appears I did forget to ask for agenda input at that time. I apologize for that. That said, the slate of documents is fairly static, so what I want to do is go over the open issues with the current documents. Hopefully there will be enough people there to make this a productive exercise. Lisa On Mar 8, 2005, at 12:51 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> There is a meeting, but I didn't get any suggestions for the agenda >> until now. Thanks for the input and broadcasting this info. >> Lisa > > With all due respect, it's kind of optimistic to expect others to make > suggestions for a meeting that wasn't announced. Working group chairs > are expected to post an agenda well before the meeting so that > participants can prepare (in particular, to help deciding whether it > makes sense to attend at all). As far as I can tell, the final > deadline for this IETF meeting was over a week ago (see > ). > > > Best regards, Julian > > -- > bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Tue Mar 8 11:23:36 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13422 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:23:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D8hTt-0006Q0-3k for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:22:49 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8hTs-0006P2-AK for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:22:48 +0000 Received: from pop.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by bart.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8hTr-0006Sn-Uc for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:22:48 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 08 Mar 2005 16:22:16 -0000 Received: from p50825119.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.1.40]) (80.130.81.25) by mail.gmx.net (mp015) with SMTP; 08 Mar 2005 17:22:16 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <422DD136.4010900@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:22:14 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lisa Dusseault CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org References: <422CB0C0.7090902@gmx.de> <37272b05748555a7f811c8028f7695e4@osafoundation.org> <422D678A.9050802@gmx.de> <217146f9e7f4c4f049dcb0d122c6f1c6@osafoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <217146f9e7f4c4f049dcb0d122c6f1c6@osafoundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (bart.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Proposal for WebDAV WG meeting agenda for 62nd IETF - Minneapolis, MN, USA X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/422DD136.4010900@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9531 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:22:49 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lisa Dusseault wrote: > > We did announce the upcoming meeting Jan 27, but it appears I did forget > to ask for agenda input at that time. I apologize for that. Well, what you did is that you reported that you asked for a meeting slot. I wouldn't call that an announcement. It's also not on www.webdav.org (where people would probably expect it). > ... Best regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Tue Mar 8 12:34:39 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22738 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:34:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D8iaG-0003CO-5S for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:33:28 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8iaA-0003AJ-FH for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:33:22 +0000 Received: from mail21.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.23]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8iaA-0003Vv-6f for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:33:22 +0000 Received: (qmail 28021 invoked from network); 8 Mar 2005 17:33:20 -0000 Received: from dsl081-070-219.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO cse.ucsc.edu) (elias@[64.81.70.219]) (envelope-sender ) by mail21.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 8 Mar 2005 17:33:20 -0000 Message-ID: <422DE1DC.8090404@cse.ucsc.edu> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:33:16 -0800 From: Elias Sinderson User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org References: <422CB0C0.7090902@gmx.de> <37272b05748555a7f811c8028f7695e4@osafoundation.org> <422D678A.9050802@gmx.de> <217146f9e7f4c4f049dcb0d122c6f1c6@osafoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <217146f9e7f4c4f049dcb0d122c6f1c6@osafoundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: none (lisa.w3.org: domain of elias@cse.ucsc.edu does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Proposal for WebDAV WG meeting agenda for 62nd IETF - Minneapolis, MN, USA X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/422DE1DC.8090404@cse.ucsc.edu Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9532 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 17:33:28 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lisa Dusseault wrote: > [...] Hopefully there will be enough people there to make this a > productive exercise. I'm unable to attend in person but will be logged in to the WebDAV text conferencing room. From reading past logs, it appears that this isn't the easiest, or most productive way to participate, but I'm willing to make the effort. Unfortunately my sound card died recently and I will not be able to make use of the audiocast. I will, however, log the session and post it to the working group mailing list. Who will be acting as speaker for the text conference attendees? Is anyone else planning on participating in this fashion? Cheers, Elias From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Tue Mar 8 13:01:52 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26265 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:01:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D8j13-0003PH-6C for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:01:09 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8j0y-0003MF-V3 for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:01:04 +0000 Received: from pop.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by bart.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8j0y-0004GZ-I3 for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:01:04 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 08 Mar 2005 18:00:30 -0000 Received: from p50825119.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.1.40]) (80.130.81.25) by mail.gmx.net (mp017) with SMTP; 08 Mar 2005 19:00:30 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <422DE83D.7070402@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:00:29 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elias Sinderson CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org References: <422CB0C0.7090902@gmx.de> <37272b05748555a7f811c8028f7695e4@osafoundation.org> <422D678A.9050802@gmx.de> <217146f9e7f4c4f049dcb0d122c6f1c6@osafoundation.org> <422DE1DC.8090404@cse.ucsc.edu> In-Reply-To: <422DE1DC.8090404@cse.ucsc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (bart.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Proposal for WebDAV WG meeting agenda for 62nd IETF - Minneapolis, MN, USA X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/422DE83D.7070402@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9533 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:01:09 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Elias Sinderson wrote: > > Lisa Dusseault wrote: > >> [...] Hopefully there will be enough people there to make this a >> productive exercise. > > > I'm unable to attend in person but will be logged in to the WebDAV text > conferencing room. From reading past logs, it appears that this isn't > the easiest, or most productive way to participate, but I'm willing to > make the effort. Unfortunately my sound card died recently and I will Great. > not be able to make use of the audiocast. I will, however, log the > session and post it to the working group mailing list. I think it's worth to try to borrow somebody else's soundcard-equipped machine. I tried the audiocast on Monday and it's great for following the discussion. > Who will be acting as speaker for the text conference attendees? Is Me. > anyone else planning on participating in this fashion? I hope some of the attendees will monitor the chat service. Best regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Tue Mar 8 14:02:23 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02348 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:02:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1D8jx9-0005fl-3w for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:01:11 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8jx4-0005eE-Tv for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:01:06 +0000 Received: from kahuna.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by bart.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1D8jx4-0001A4-JV for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:01:06 +0000 Old-X-Envelope-From: lisa@osafoundation.org Old-X-Envelope-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Received: from [130.129.134.132] (wireless-130-129-134-132.ietf62.ietf.org [130.129.134.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by kahuna.osafoundation.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j28J13aa021192 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:01:04 -0800 In-Reply-To: <422DE1DC.8090404@cse.ucsc.edu> References: <422CB0C0.7090902@gmx.de> <37272b05748555a7f811c8028f7695e4@osafoundation.org> <422D678A.9050802@gmx.de> <217146f9e7f4c4f049dcb0d122c6f1c6@osafoundation.org> <422DE1DC.8090404@cse.ucsc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <930438903bfef6d1d21aff894dc5cfea@osafoundation.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org From: Lisa Dusseault Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:00:59 -0800 To: Elias Sinderson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 127.0.0.1 Received-SPF: pass (bart.w3.org: domain of lisa@osafoundation.org designates 204.152.186.98 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Proposal for WebDAV WG meeting agenda for 62nd IETF - Minneapolis, MN, USA X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/930438903bfef6d1d21aff894dc5cfea@osafoundation.org Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9534 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 19:01:11 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, we always get a Jabber scribe and that scribe (or a helper) will tell the room when people in the Jabber chat have important stuff to say. It *is* difficult, however. (It's certainly not the easiest way to overcome differences and resolve difficult problems. For that, I highly recommend some face to face time when possible.) Lisa On Mar 8, 2005, at 9:33 AM, Elias Sinderson wrote: > > Lisa Dusseault wrote: > >> [...] Hopefully there will be enough people there to make this a >> productive exercise. > > I'm unable to attend in person but will be logged in to the WebDAV > text conferencing room. From reading past logs, it appears that this > isn't the easiest, or most productive way to participate, but I'm > willing to make the effort. Unfortunately my sound card died recently > and I will not be able to make use of the audiocast. I will, however, > log the session and post it to the working group mailing list. > > Who will be acting as speaker for the text conference attendees? Is > anyone else planning on participating in this fashion? > > > Cheers, > Elias > From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Tue Mar 15 15:55:04 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18612 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:55:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DBJ2A-0001kI-7v for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:52:58 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DBJ23-0001jL-It for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:52:51 +0000 Received: from imap.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by lisa.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DBJ23-0002VW-7K for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:52:51 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2005 20:52:18 -0000 Received: from pD9E51888.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.3]) (217.229.24.136) by mail.gmx.net (mp019) with SMTP; 15 Mar 2005 21:52:18 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <42374AFA.1040108@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:52:10 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org CC: Lisa Dusseault , Joe Hildebrand References: <422CB0C0.7090902@gmx.de> <37272b05748555a7f811c8028f7695e4@osafoundation.org> <422D678A.9050802@gmx.de> <217146f9e7f4c4f049dcb0d122c6f1c6@osafoundation.org> <422DE1DC.8090404@cse.ucsc.edu> <930438903bfef6d1d21aff894dc5cfea@osafoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <930438903bfef6d1d21aff894dc5cfea@osafoundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Summary of "working group meeting", was: Proposal for WebDAV WG meeting agenda for 62nd IETF - Minneapolis, MN, USA X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/42374AFA.1040108@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9535 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:52:58 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lisa Dusseault wrote: > > Yes, we always get a Jabber scribe and that scribe (or a helper) will > tell the room when people in the Jabber chat have important stuff to > say. It *is* difficult, however. (It's certainly not the easiest way > to overcome differences and resolve difficult problems. For that, I > highly recommend some face to face time when possible.) OK, almost a week has passed since the meeting, and no minutes have been posted (will there be any????). The Jabber log is available from but that's not a replacement. I listened to the audio cast (archived at , discussion starts at around 22min), and here's *my* summary: - Only few people attended (13 physically, a few on the text chat) - I don't find that surprising at all, given the fact that it wasn't announced in time, and no agenda was posted. In particular, with the exception of Lisa Dusseault, none of the authors of the current working group documents were present. - The meeting ended after less than 20 minutes (instead of the 2,5 hours that were scheduled) and basically no technical questions were discussed. Considering the amount of time and money one would have spent in order to physically attend the meeting, I'll just note that I'm happy that I stayed at home. At this point, I think it's up to the working group chairs to state how they want to continue with this WG (or, if they don't indend to, that as well). What should be obvious is that we need to change a lot of things if we want to fulfill what's been outlined in the charter. Note that we don't need a WG to do useful work; but having a WG that is incapable of making any decisions (or shipping documents that are ready) means that the active contributors are basically wasting their time fighting process barriers instead if doing meaningful technical work. Best regards and feedback appreciated, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Wed Mar 16 20:25:10 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA22913 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:25:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DBjj4-0003A0-Ay for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:23:02 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DBjix-00038z-De for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:22:55 +0000 Received: from services.cse.ucsc.edu ([128.114.48.10]) by bart.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DBjix-00034C-4x for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:22:55 +0000 Received: from tycho (dhcp-59-157.cse.ucsc.edu [128.114.59.157]) by services.cse.ucsc.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2H1MqXd021767 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:22:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200503170122.j2H1MqXd021767@services.cse.ucsc.edu> Reply-To: From: "Jim Whitehead" To: Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:22:50 -0800 Organization: UC Santa Cruz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <42374AFA.1040108@gmx.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcUpoTEXKRzSKxNuTjWTTyi1LUKLXAA7ReCQ Received-SPF: none (bart.w3.org: domain of ejw@cs.ucsc.edu does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: RE: Summary of "working group meeting" X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/200503170122.j2H1MqXd021767@services.cse.ucsc.edu Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9536 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:23:02 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julian Reschke writes: > At this point, I think it's up to the working group chairs to > state how they want to continue with this WG (or, if they > don't indend to, that as well). What should be obvious is > that we need to change a lot of things if we want to fulfill > what's been outlined in the charter. I'm not too surprised at the lack of detailed discussion at the WG meeting -- this is clearly attributable to the lack of an agenda, and the lack of consensus on which document to push forward at present. The deeper issue is whether this remains a useful working group. This depends, in turn, on whether the group is able to perform useful work (I am not as concerned about meeting deadlines, so long as work is progressing). My personal feeling is that the current working group is able to perform useful work. The recent discussion on the bind specification highlights this, and I'll also point to the fact that we've been able to issue about an RFC a year for the past few years. This is pretty good for a volunteer organization, and better than many other IETF WGs. Some point to the lack of review of the bind specification in last call. I think this is largely due to current implementors on the list not generally viewing that specification as a priority, and hence the main parties of interest are the specification editors and one or two other long-time contributors. I would not view this lack of last-call review as indicative of the WG's inability to make progress. My personal feeling is that this working group needs firm direction from its chairs on what to work on next, and it also needs commitment to get completed drafts through the approval process. I've volunteered to work on the bind specification to get it to RFC status. Beyond this, the most constructive step is to determine which draft to work on next. My vote is for the quota protocol, since we have at least two very interested implementors who want to see this completed. - Jim PS - When I was chair, it was rare to get meeting minutes out very quickly. It's boring, tedious work. From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Thu Mar 17 13:30:48 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA04068 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:30:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DBzjk-0001ZW-F4 for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:28:48 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DBzjd-0001WG-6h for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:28:41 +0000 Received: from kahuna.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DBzjc-00014b-Vl for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:28:41 +0000 Old-X-Envelope-From: lisa@osafoundation.org Old-X-Envelope-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Received: from [192.168.101.178] (w002.z065106067.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net [65.106.67.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by kahuna.osafoundation.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j2HISWaa032488 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:28:37 -0800 In-Reply-To: <200503170122.j2H1MqXd021767@services.cse.ucsc.edu> References: <200503170122.j2H1MqXd021767@services.cse.ucsc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <71c150382c9e240fba9daab6c4a8c6b8@osafoundation.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: From: Lisa Dusseault Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:27:25 -0800 To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 127.0.0.1 Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of lisa@osafoundation.org designates 204.152.186.98 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Summary of "working group meeting" X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/71c150382c9e240fba9daab6c4a8c6b8@osafoundation.org Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9537 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:28:48 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mar 16, 2005, at 5:22 PM, Jim Whitehead wrote: > My personal feeling is that this working group needs firm direction > from its > chairs on what to work on next, and it also needs commitment to get > completed drafts through the approval process. I've volunteered to > work on > the bind specification to get it to RFC status. Beyond this, the most > constructive step is to determine which draft to work on next. Hi Jim, this is great. I appreciate your willingness to work on this and look forward to seeing your draft. The other thing we'll need to finish Bind is a couple of serious reviews. > > My vote is for the quota protocol, since we have at least two very > interested implementors who want to see this completed. That sounds good to me, also because the quota protocol is quite simple. Again, we need a couple reviews to finish this one off. Jim Luther, are you still out there? With your early involvement in quota, it would be great to have a review now, even if there are no design issues. (At this point, finding nits is also needed). Anybody else? Thanks, Lisa From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Thu Mar 17 13:54:04 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06398 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:54:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DC07W-00043A-8n for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:53:22 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC07O-0003yu-8J for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:53:14 +0000 Received: from imap.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by bart.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC07N-0001A3-UP for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:53:14 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2005 18:52:38 -0000 Received: from p5082506A.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.1.40]) [80.130.80.106] by mail.gmx.net (mp006) with SMTP; 17 Mar 2005 19:52:38 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <4239D1F3.3060906@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:52:35 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lisa Dusseault CC: ejw@soe.ucsc.edu, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org References: <200503170122.j2H1MqXd021767@services.cse.ucsc.edu> <71c150382c9e240fba9daab6c4a8c6b8@osafoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <71c150382c9e240fba9daab6c4a8c6b8@osafoundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (bart.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Summary of "working group meeting" X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/4239D1F3.3060906@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9538 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:53:22 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lisa Dusseault wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2005, at 5:22 PM, Jim Whitehead wrote: > >> My personal feeling is that this working group needs firm direction >> from its >> chairs on what to work on next, and it also needs commitment to get >> completed drafts through the approval process. I've volunteered to >> work on >> the bind specification to get it to RFC status. Beyond this, the most >> constructive step is to determine which draft to work on next. > > > Hi Jim, this is great. I appreciate your willingness to work on this > and look forward to seeing your draft. The other thing we'll need to What kind of draft are you expecting? The current draft has passed the working group last-call, and as far as I can tell, there are no open issues (according to the definition in Joe's last call plan). > finish Bind is a couple of serious reviews. This spec has been reviewed so many times that it will be hard to find any new reviewer. - First, it has gone through a working group last call back in 2000 (?) - Then, in 2003, once Geoff Clemm had picked it up again, it has been reviewed and commented on by the current implementors (SAP Netweaver, Apache/Slide); see messages around . - Then, when approaching last-call, it has been discussed again and again on the mailing list, culminating with the last call this January. As far as I can tell, this draft clearly represents WG consensus *and* running code, and there's absolutely no reason not to submit it. Anyway, could you please also comment on Jim's: "My personal feeling is that this working group needs firm direction from its chairs on what to work on next, and it also needs commitment to get completed drafts through the approval process." >> My vote is for the quota protocol, since we have at least two very >> interested implementors who want to see this completed. > > > That sounds good to me, also because the quota protocol is quite > simple. Again, we need a couple reviews to finish this one off. Jim > Luther, are you still out there? With your early involvement in quota, > it would be great to have a review now, even if there are no design > issues. (At this point, finding nits is also needed). Anybody else? If we're really interested in that spec, we should ask the authors to comment on the feedback that came in for the previous draft, to resolve the remaining issues and to prepare a new draft for working-group last call. Best regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Thu Mar 17 14:17:35 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09225 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:17:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DC0U0-0002fg-Qz for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:16:36 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC0Ts-0002M9-4p for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:16:28 +0000 Received: from kahuna.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC0Tr-0000rn-T5 for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:16:28 +0000 Old-X-Envelope-From: lisa@osafoundation.org Old-X-Envelope-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Received: from [192.168.101.178] (w002.z065106067.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net [65.106.67.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by kahuna.osafoundation.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j2HJGLaa008676 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:16:22 -0800 In-Reply-To: <4239D1F3.3060906@gmx.de> References: <200503170122.j2H1MqXd021767@services.cse.ucsc.edu> <71c150382c9e240fba9daab6c4a8c6b8@osafoundation.org> <4239D1F3.3060906@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <42bdce9975e765247b943f6dd8095efb@osafoundation.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, ejw@soe.ucsc.edu From: Lisa Dusseault Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:15:13 -0800 To: Julian Reschke X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 127.0.0.1 Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of lisa@osafoundation.org designates 204.152.186.98 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Summary of "working group meeting" X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/42bdce9975e765247b943f6dd8095efb@osafoundation.org Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9539 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:16:36 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Julian, I know you think that there are issues remaining on Quota as well as no issues remaining on Bind. I do not agree with you on Bind, and I am not sure that there are open issues on Quota worth pursuing. Brian has done a slow but decent job of responding to the issues you've raised and if he followed your approach, then he would simply declare the rest of them closed. Are you willing to compromise on any of the issues you've raised on Quota in order to see it completed? Can you get other people to review Quota and either agree with your open issues or state that there are no blocking issues? I agree this working group needs good leadership but it also needs volunteers -- more than just two or three volunteers to do the work of writing and reviewing -- and we need some more compromises. I apologize again that we did not have an agenda for the WG meeting in Minneapolis, but I will point out again that we got no suggestions for the agenda until the week before the meeting. Previous meetings which were better organized still had attendance problems and a poor record of accomplishing any progress. For example, in Washington we had the same issues we have today, the same few people participating. We could have cancelled the Minneapolis meeting rather than create an agenda, but as for myself, I wanted to give the WG one last chance for parties to get together and communicate and compromise. Lisa On Mar 17, 2005, at 10:52 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> On Mar 16, 2005, at 5:22 PM, Jim Whitehead wrote: >>> My personal feeling is that this working group needs firm direction >>> from its >>> chairs on what to work on next, and it also needs commitment to get >>> completed drafts through the approval process. I've volunteered to >>> work on >>> the bind specification to get it to RFC status. Beyond this, the most >>> constructive step is to determine which draft to work on next. >> Hi Jim, this is great. I appreciate your willingness to work on >> this and look forward to seeing your draft. The other thing we'll >> need to > > What kind of draft are you expecting? The current draft has passed the > working group last-call, and as far as I can tell, there are no open > issues (according to the definition in Joe's last call plan). > >> finish Bind is a couple of serious reviews. > > This spec has been reviewed so many times that it will be hard to find > any new reviewer. > > - First, it has gone through a working group last call back in 2000 (?) > > - Then, in 2003, once Geoff Clemm had picked it up again, it has been > reviewed and commented on by the current implementors (SAP Netweaver, > Apache/Slide); see messages around > 0132.html>. > > - Then, when approaching last-call, it has been discussed again and > again on the mailing list, culminating with the last call this > January. > > As far as I can tell, this draft clearly represents WG consensus *and* > running code, and there's absolutely no reason not to submit it. > > Anyway, could you please also comment on Jim's: > > "My personal feeling is that this working group needs firm direction > from its chairs on what to work on next, and it also needs commitment > to get completed drafts through the approval process." > > >>> My vote is for the quota protocol, since we have at least two very >>> interested implementors who want to see this completed. >> That sounds good to me, also because the quota protocol is quite >> simple. Again, we need a couple reviews to finish this one off. >> Jim Luther, are you still out there? With your early involvement in >> quota, it would be great to have a review now, even if there are no >> design issues. (At this point, finding nits is also needed). Anybody >> else? > > If we're really interested in that spec, we should ask the authors to > comment on the feedback that came in for the previous draft, to > resolve the remaining issues and to prepare a new draft for > working-group last call. > > > > Best regards, Julian > > -- > bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Thu Mar 17 14:44:23 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12097 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:44:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DC0u4-0003JT-HF for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:43:32 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC0tw-0003IE-AF for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:43:24 +0000 Received: from pop.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by lisa.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC0tv-0007Lv-Va for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:43:24 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2005 19:42:48 -0000 Received: from pD9FF0D08.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.3]) [217.255.13.8] by mail.gmx.net (mp010) with SMTP; 17 Mar 2005 20:42:48 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <4239DDB4.6050305@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:42:44 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lisa Dusseault CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, ejw@soe.ucsc.edu References: <200503170122.j2H1MqXd021767@services.cse.ucsc.edu> <71c150382c9e240fba9daab6c4a8c6b8@osafoundation.org> <4239D1F3.3060906@gmx.de> <42bdce9975e765247b943f6dd8095efb@osafoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <42bdce9975e765247b943f6dd8095efb@osafoundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Summary of "working group meeting" X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/4239DDB4.6050305@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9540 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:43:32 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lisa Dusseault wrote: > Hi Julian, > > I know you think that there are issues remaining on Quota as well as no > issues remaining on Bind. I do not agree with you on Bind, and I am Lisa, we have a WG process for defining what an open issue is. This has been outlined by Joe, and everybody agreed to stick to it. Based on that process, there are no issues. If you disagree with this statement, please be more specific. > not sure that there are open issues on Quota worth pursuing. Brian has > done a slow but decent job of responding to the issues you've raised > and if he followed your approach, then he would simply declare the rest > of them closed. Are you willing to compromise on any of the issues ...in which case we'd start a last call, open a Bugzilla section for it, and follow our process for dealing with them. Fine with me. > you've raised on Quota in order to see it completed? Can you get other > people to review Quota and either agree with your open issues or state > that there are no blocking issues? Please do us all a favor and please read what issues exactly I raised (see ). > I agree this working group needs good leadership but it also needs > volunteers -- more than just two or three volunteers to do the work of > writing and reviewing -- and we need some more compromises. I > apologize again that we did not have an agenda for the WG meeting in > Minneapolis, but I will point out again that we got no suggestions for > the agenda until the week before the meeting. Previous meetings which Well, in which case I'll have to point out that there was no announcement whatsover. Please do not complain about the fact that *others* haven't been doing the work that's supposed to be done by the chairs. By the way: there was exactly one agenda proposal, and as far as I can tell, it has been ignored by the chairs. > were better organized still had attendance problems and a poor record > of accomplishing any progress. For example, in Washington we had the > same issues we have today, the same few people participating. We could > have cancelled the Minneapolis meeting rather than create an agenda, > but as for myself, I wanted to give the WG one last chance for parties > to get together and communicate and compromise. I guess we'll continue to disagree here. There was no announcement, no agenda, and the meeting was closed after less than 20 minutes although there were unanswered questions on the Jabber chat (by Bernard D. and myself). It would be nice if we could now get back to the open issues we have to resolve. How about starting with the agenda that was proposed by me in ? Best regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Thu Mar 17 18:00:38 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00543 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:00:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DC3xS-0005CI-LX for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:59:14 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC3xI-0005Aw-HL for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:59:04 +0000 Received: from exchange.webb.net ([207.182.164.133] helo=ossex1.ossinc.net) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC3xH-00045K-BZ for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:59:03 +0000 Received: by corp.webb.net with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:50:10 -0700 Message-ID: <8D96EDA0AC04D31197B400A0C96C148010DFC711@corp.webb.net> From: Joe Hildebrand To: webdav Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:50:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: none (lisa.w3.org: domain of JHildebrand@jabber.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Working group moving forward? X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/8D96EDA0AC04D31197B400A0C96C148010DFC711@corp.webb.net Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9541 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:59:14 +0000 I split this out into a separate thread so it's easier to find. My take on what I've seen in the last several months of the WebDAV working group is that if there was to be a BOF session today, I don't see any way that a working group would get approved. A couple of people would have shown up to the meeting, no one except the person asking for the BOF would have agreed to edit drafts, and there might only be weak hums for "is this interesting" and "is this a good technical approach". As far as where we are now, some of the current drafts might make much better progress as individual submissions. Keep in mind that in the current process the WG chair has to shepard WG drafts through. As much as editors may not like this, it means that you have to get at least one WG chair fired up enough about your draft to take on this responsibility. That is a sales job, not a technical job. However, as individual submissions, all of the process is up to the AD. The downside for editors is that ADs are pretty busy, and you have to sell your work to them. Also, there's no way to force consensus on an AD, since they can just say "no". My guess for BIND is that either Ted or Scott would want clarification on a couple of the interoperability questions that Lisa has raised, regardless of whether the answer can be inferred by a fully-informed reader. This means that moving to the individual process might or might not streamline the process, depending upon how willing you were to make changes that they asked for. Frankly, I don't think the working group process is adding much in the way of value for the drafts we are working on, compared with other WGs I've participated in. As such, it may be needless bureaucracy, and we ought to think about decommissioning it. -- Joe Hildebrand Confidentiality Note: This email is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify Jabber, Inc. immediately by telephone at +303-308-3231. From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Thu Mar 17 18:39:01 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04522 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:39:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DC4ZA-0000hB-U9 for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:38:12 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC4Z4-0000gQ-TZ for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:38:06 +0000 Received: from pop.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by lisa.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC4Z4-0001xI-L4 for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:38:06 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2005 23:37:31 -0000 Received: from pD9FF0D08.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.4]) [217.255.13.8] by mail.gmx.net (mp023) with SMTP; 18 Mar 2005 00:37:31 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <423A14AE.3090303@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:37:18 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Reschke CC: Lisa Dusseault , w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, ejw@soe.ucsc.edu References: <200503170122.j2H1MqXd021767@services.cse.ucsc.edu> <71c150382c9e240fba9daab6c4a8c6b8@osafoundation.org> <4239D1F3.3060906@gmx.de> <42bdce9975e765247b943f6dd8095efb@osafoundation.org> <4239DDB4.6050305@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4239DDB4.6050305@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Summary of "working group meeting" X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/423A14AE.3090303@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9542 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:38:12 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julian Reschke wrote: > ... > Please do us all a favor and please read what issues exactly I raised > (see > ). > ... Sorry, that should have been . > ... Best regards, Julian From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Thu Mar 17 18:55:15 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA05430 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:55:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DC4ox-0005wN-P3 for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:54:31 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC4os-0005vi-KB for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:54:26 +0000 Received: from services.cse.ucsc.edu ([128.114.48.10]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC4os-0004sM-EF for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:54:26 +0000 Received: from tycho (dhcp-59-157.cse.ucsc.edu [128.114.59.157]) by services.cse.ucsc.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2HNsOVj015253 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:54:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200503172354.j2HNsOVj015253@services.cse.ucsc.edu> Reply-To: From: "Jim Whitehead" To: "'webdav'" Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:54:20 -0800 Organization: UC Santa Cruz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <8D96EDA0AC04D31197B400A0C96C148010DFC711@corp.webb.net> Thread-Index: AcUrRRLqRXKQ27kETOyJtnciaWL/qAABNGgQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Received-SPF: none (lisa.w3.org: domain of ejw@cs.ucsc.edu does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: RE: Working group moving forward? X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/200503172354.j2HNsOVj015253@services.cse.ucsc.edu Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9543 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:54:31 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joe, Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the WebDAV WG, and its future direction. Thank you as well for your contributions to this working group as its Co-Chair. I know well that this is a time consuming and often thankless task. But (and you knew a "but" was coming :-) I do disagree with you on several points. > My take on what I've seen in the last several months of the > WebDAV working group is that if there was to be a BOF session > today, I don't see any way that a working group would get > approved. Irrelevant. In 1996 there was a clear and present need for an interoperable web authoring standard. At that time, the WebDAV BOF had a standing room crowd. Of course there would be fewer people today, just as it would be hard to have a broadly attended FTP BOF, or Telnet BOF. We're not in that phase of development. We're in completion mode, not ramp up mode. It's never exciting to dot the final "i" and cross the final "t". > As far as where we are now, some of the current drafts might > make much better progress as individual submissions. This is very unclear. The progress of individual submissions in the RFC editor's queue, once they have received IESG approval, is glacial. They never turn into RFCs. Working group documents fare much better in terms of responsiveness. > Keep in mind that in the current process the WG chair has to shepard > WG drafts through. As much as editors may not like this, it > means that you have to get at least one WG chair fired > up enough about your draft to take on this responsibility. A Chair assumes certain duties when they take on the position of Chair. I do not see any process RFC that states that document authors are required to generate enthusiasm in their Chairs. > My guess for BIND is that either Ted or Scott would want > clarification on a couple of the interoperability questions > that Lisa has raised, regardless of whether the answer can be > inferred by a fully-informed reader. I agree, and applaud that you, as Chair, are helping to focus the discussion of the working group on productive, tangible work items. > Frankly, I don't think the working group process is adding > much in the way of value for the drafts we are working on, > compared with other WGs I've participated in. As such, it > may be needless bureaucracy, and we ought to think about > decommissioning it. I disagree. This working group has had a good track record over the past few years of shipping specifications to RFC status (3648 in 12/2003, 3744 in 5/2004). These specifications have had multiple implementations, and are in shipping code that meet thousand's of people's needs on a daily basis. The issues raised in the recent last calls have been subtle, and resolving them has significantly enhanced the quality and value of the final specifications. IMO, this is evidence of a working group doing what it's supposed to do: providing careful, informed review, and producing top quality specifications. I think the WebDAV Working Group can very usefully serve two more purposes, neither of which needs to take much time. 1) Complete BIND. 2) Complete Quota. Both are very close to completion. Once these two are done, then it seems reasonable to disband WebDAV WG. Given how close these two documents are to being done, it would be a waste of all of the effort that has gone into them to date to stop their development as WG items now. - Jim From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Thu Mar 17 19:31:32 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08224 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:31:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DC5Nf-0001LV-II for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:30:23 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC4wc-0000R2-Pn for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:02:26 +0000 Received: from services.cse.ucsc.edu ([128.114.48.10]) by bart.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC4tF-0000y4-0K for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:58:57 +0000 Received: from tycho (dhcp-59-157.cse.ucsc.edu [128.114.59.157]) by services.cse.ucsc.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2HNwt05017452 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:58:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200503172358.j2HNwt05017452@services.cse.ucsc.edu> Reply-To: From: "Jim Whitehead" To: "'webdav'" Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:58:50 -0800 Organization: UC Santa Cruz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <8D96EDA0AC04D31197B400A0C96C148010DFC711@corp.webb.net> Thread-Index: AcUrRRLqRXKQ27kETOyJtnciaWL/qAAB5f/A X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Received-SPF: none (bart.w3.org: domain of ejw@cs.ucsc.edu does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Moving forward on BIND X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/200503172358.j2HNwt05017452@services.cse.ucsc.edu Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9544 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:30:23 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Joe writes: > My guess for BIND is that either Ted or Scott would want > clarification on a couple of the interoperability questions > that Lisa has raised, regardless of whether the answer can be > inferred by a fully-informed reader. Julian Reschke and I just chatted on the phone. My perception is that we both agree that it makes sense to discuss the semantics of all DAV properties under BIND, UNBIND, and REBIND. There seem to be differences in desired behavior between properties whose semantics originated in WeBDAV (which are typically defined on the resource), and ones inherited from HTTP (like getlastmodified) which depend on representations of the resource. It is likely this discussion will lead to modifications to the bind specification. Julian said he'd take the first whack at summarizing the technical points. - Jim From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Thu Mar 17 19:32:16 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08405 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:32:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DC5Oy-0001ty-KK for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:31:44 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC5Or-0001XR-QH for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:31:37 +0000 Received: from services.cse.ucsc.edu ([128.114.48.10]) by bart.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC5Lh-0006lR-0o for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:28:21 +0000 Received: from tycho (dhcp-59-157.cse.ucsc.edu [128.114.59.157]) by services.cse.ucsc.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2I0SK0k002067 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:28:20 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200503180028.j2I0SK0k002067@services.cse.ucsc.edu> Reply-To: From: "Jim Whitehead" To: Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:28:15 -0800 Organization: UC Santa Cruz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <420BC4BF.9070301@gmx.de> Thread-Index: AcUPr8sJ5hN2cXy6Sx6qGNRsZoYKmQbnuKHA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Received-SPF: none (bart.w3.org: domain of ejw@cs.ucsc.edu does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: RE: Review of quota-06 X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/200503180028.j2I0SK0k002067@services.cse.ucsc.edu Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9545 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:31:44 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julian, > 01-C03 quota vs disk space > 0439.html> > 0460.html> > 0184.html> > 0193.html> > > The spec says that servers may expose physical disk limits as quota. In my reading of the -06 specification, I'm not able to see any mention of this. The only concern I see is that the definition of quota-available-bytes is defined in terms of "disk space" available and not "storage space" available. Then again, even storage media that aren't disks are typically referred to as drives these days (e.g., "thumb drive" for RAM-based storage sticks), so maybe it's not an issue. > 04-C07, section 3, DAV:quota-available-bytes > > tml#rfc.section.3> > > "Support for this property is REQUIRED on collections, and > OPTIONAL on > other resources. A server SHOULD implement this property for each > resource that has the DAV:quota-used-bytes property." > > What's the motivation for the distinction? (same in section 4) Seems to me the motivation is to ensure that collections know how much space is available in their namspace, thereby providing clients an aggregated understanding of available storage space associated with a particular namespace. It's not clear to me whether you object to this, or are seeking additional clarification text. > > > 04-C11, section 7 > > "The total size of a collection, DAV:quota-used-bytes, is not > necessarily a sum of the DAV:getcontentlength properties for > resources stored in the collection." > > Actually, it won't be in most cases I'm aware of. Please > either rephrase it (so this doesn't sound like an edge case) > or drop the point. > > Update -06: It's now saying > > "The total size of a collection, DAV:quota-used-bytes, may > not be a sum of the DAV:getcontentlength properties for > resources stored in the collection." > > ...which isn't that different... Let me suggest: "Since there are many factors that affect the storage used by a set of resources, including automatic compression, the size of associated metadata, and server-inserted content (such as that created by PHP code) in the on-the-wire representation of resources, clients are advised to not depend on the value of DAV:quota-used-bytes being the sum of the DAV:getcontentlength properties for resources contained by a collection." > 05-C02, Section 4 > > tml#rfc.section.4> > > I think this property is "computed" (as defined in RFC3253), > and the spec should say so. I agree. The DAV:quota-used-bytes is a "computed" property according to RFC3253, and I agree it would be useful to explicitly state this. I recommend adding the following sentence to the end of section 4, as a new paragraph: "This value of this property is computed (see Section 1.4.3 of [RFC3253] for the definition of computed property). A 403 Forbidden response is RECOMMENDED for attempts to write a protected property, and the server SHOULD include an XML error body as defined by DeltaV [RFC3253] with the precondition tag." > 05-E01, section 1.2 > > tml#rfc.section.1.2> > > I'd move those parts that "import" terminology from > RFC2518/3253 into a > separate subsection ("Terminology"), and also refer to the def of > "computed" property (I think we need that later). I mostly agree. I think the reference to RFC3253 for computed and protected properties should go in Section 1.1, not in the "requirements" section. So, I recommend deleting the following sentence from Section 1.2: "This specification requires WebDAV because it requires PROPFIND support and relies on the WebDAV definition of collections and properties, including the definitions for live and protected properties (see section 1.4.2 of [RFC3253] for the definition of protected properties)." I recommend adding the following sentence to Section 1.1, as a new paragraph. "The definition of live property is provided in [RFC2518]. The definition of protected and computed properties is provided in [RFC3253], Section 1.4." - Jim From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Thu Mar 17 20:13:52 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11695 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:13:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DC62x-0003wS-7z for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:13:03 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC62q-0003v3-Uu for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:12:56 +0000 Received: from mail-out3.apple.com ([17.254.13.22]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DC62q-000062-Lw for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:12:56 +0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j2I1CLxw012056 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:12:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay4.apple.com (relay4.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.17) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:58:28 -0800 Received: from [17.202.43.76] (luthji.apple.com [17.202.43.76]) by relay4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j2I0wRpj006508 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:58:27 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v722) In-Reply-To: <71c150382c9e240fba9daab6c4a8c6b8@osafoundation.org> References: <200503170122.j2H1MqXd021767@services.cse.ucsc.edu> <71c150382c9e240fba9daab6c4a8c6b8@osafoundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <263E894F-EC1C-4789-BB20-9AD13B8D16C1@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jim Luther Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:58:27 -0800 To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.722) Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of luther.j@apple.com designates 17.254.13.22 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Summary of "working group meeting" X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/263E894F-EC1C-4789-BB20-9AD13B8D16C1@apple.com Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9546 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:13:03 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mar 17, 2005, at 10:27 AM, Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> My vote is for the quota protocol, since we have at least two very >> interested implementors who want to see this completed. > > That sounds good to me, also because the quota protocol is quite > simple. Again, we need a couple reviews to finish this one off. > Jim Luther, are you still out there? With your early involvement > in quota, it would be great to have a review now, even if there are > no design issues. (At this point, finding nits is also needed). > Anybody else? Yes, I'm still lurking. I'll give the latest quota draft and Julian's issues at another look. - Jim From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Fri Mar 18 01:14:29 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA05871 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 01:14:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DCAjD-0005bF-PS for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:12:59 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DCAj3-00056h-76 for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:12:49 +0000 Received: from pop.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by bart.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DCAj2-0005JJ-Gi for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:12:48 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2005 06:12:15 -0000 Received: from pD9FF0D08.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.3]) [217.255.13.8] by mail.gmx.net (mp013) with SMTP; 18 Mar 2005 07:12:15 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <423A7139.4030408@gmx.de> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:12:09 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ejw@soe.ucsc.edu CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org References: <200503180028.j2I0SK0k002067@services.cse.ucsc.edu> In-Reply-To: <200503180028.j2I0SK0k002067@services.cse.ucsc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (bart.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Review of quota-06 X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/423A7139.4030408@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9547 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:12:59 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim Whitehead wrote: > Julian, > > >>01-C03 quota vs disk space >>>0439.html> >>>0460.html> >>>0184.html> >>>0193.html> >> >>The spec says that servers may expose physical disk limits as quota. > > > In my reading of the -06 specification, I'm not able to see any mention of > this. I just checked, and the last mention of it seems to be in : ``Note that there may be a number of distinct but overlapping limits, which may even include physical media limits. When reporting DAV:quota-available-bytes, the server is at liberty to choose any of those limits but SHOULD do so in a repeatable way. The rule may be configured per repository, or may be "choose the smallest number". If a resource has no quota enforced or unlimited storage ("infinite limits"), the server MAY choose not to return this property (404 Not Found response in Multi-Status), although this specification RECOMMENDS that servers return some appropriate value (e.g. the amount of free disc space). A client cannot entirely assume that there is no quota enforced on a resource that does not have this property, but might as well act as if there is no quota.'' > The only concern I see is that the definition of quota-available-bytes is > defined in terms of "disk space" available and not "storage space" > available. Then again, even storage media that aren't disks are typically > referred to as drives these days (e.g., "thumb drive" for RAM-based storage > sticks), so maybe it's not an issue. I think it would be a useful feature if a client could detect whether a write failed because of disk full rather than quota exceeded (Unix and NFS4 status codes allow the same distinction, see RFC3530, "NFS4ERR_DQUOT" and "NFS4ERR_NOSPC"). >>04-C07, section 3, DAV:quota-available-bytes >> >>>tml#rfc.section.3> >> >> "Support for this property is REQUIRED on collections, and >>OPTIONAL on >> other resources. A server SHOULD implement this property for each >> resource that has the DAV:quota-used-bytes property." >> >>What's the motivation for the distinction? (same in section 4) > > > Seems to me the motivation is to ensure that collections know how much space > is available in their namspace, thereby providing clients an aggregated > understanding of available storage space associated with a particular > namespace. > > It's not clear to me whether you object to this, or are seeking additional > clarification text. I'd like to understand why it's only optional on non-collections. >>04-C11, section 7 >> >> "The total size of a collection, DAV:quota-used-bytes, is not >> necessarily a sum of the DAV:getcontentlength properties for >> resources stored in the collection." >> >>Actually, it won't be in most cases I'm aware of. Please >>either rephrase it (so this doesn't sound like an edge case) >>or drop the point. >> >>Update -06: It's now saying >> >>"The total size of a collection, DAV:quota-used-bytes, may >>not be a sum of the DAV:getcontentlength properties for >>resources stored in the collection." >> >>...which isn't that different... > > > Let me suggest: > > "Since there are many factors that affect the storage used by a set of > resources, including automatic compression, the size of associated metadata, > and server-inserted content (such as that created by PHP code) in the > on-the-wire representation of resources, clients are advised to not depend > on the value of DAV:quota-used-bytes being the sum of the > DAV:getcontentlength properties for resources contained by a collection." :-) That's only *one* issue. The main problem here is that in many qutoa systems (such as the Unix one), the DAV:quota-used-bytes property on a collection will work completely differently and will have nothing to do whatsoever with the *members* of that collection. Check for instance: : ``Note that there may be a number of distinct but overlapping sets of resources for which a DAV:quota-used-bytes is maintained (e.g. "all files with a given owner", "all files with a given group owner", etc.). The server is at liberty to choose any of those sets but SHOULD do so in a repeatable way. The rule may be configured per repository.'' So for a server that implements user-based quota (which IMHO is the most common way to implement it), DAV:quota-used-bytes usually will be the *same* for a collection and it's members. > ... Best regards and thank for the review, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Fri Mar 18 11:44:58 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA26833 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:44:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DCKYY-0006sH-6n for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:42:38 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DCKYQ-0006qO-B4 for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:42:30 +0000 Received: from mail23.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.25]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DCKYQ-0006CG-2h for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:42:30 +0000 Received: (qmail 9785 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2005 16:42:28 -0000 Received: from dsl081-070-219.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO cse.ucsc.edu) (elias@[64.81.70.219]) (envelope-sender ) by mail23.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 18 Mar 2005 16:42:28 -0000 Message-ID: <423B04F3.4050002@cse.ucsc.edu> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:42:27 -0800 From: Elias Sinderson User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Reschke CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, Lisa Dusseault , Joe Hildebrand References: <422CB0C0.7090902@gmx.de> <37272b05748555a7f811c8028f7695e4@osafoundation.org> <422D678A.9050802@gmx.de> <217146f9e7f4c4f049dcb0d122c6f1c6@osafoundation.org> <422DE1DC.8090404@cse.ucsc.edu> <930438903bfef6d1d21aff894dc5cfea@osafoundation.org> <42374AFA.1040108@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <42374AFA.1040108@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: none (lisa.w3.org: domain of elias@cse.ucsc.edu does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Summary of "working group meeting", was: Proposal for WebDAV WG meeting agenda for 62nd IETF - Minneapolis, MN, USA X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/423B04F3.4050002@cse.ucsc.edu Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9548 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:42:38 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I've been meaning to add my few cents to this thread since it was first posted and only now have found the time (danged work schedule) - my full response will be split across a couple / few thread and messages but can basically be summarized by the following two points: * I think the WG may be sick, but it isn't dead (or necessarily dying, for that matter, but perhaps tired...) * There is work to be done and doing so within the context of the WG makes far more sense than otherwise Julian Reschke wrote: > almost a week has passed since the meeting, and no minutes have been > posted (will there be any????). The Jabber log is available from > > but that's not a replacement. +1, I read the jabber log but there wasn't much there. > I listened to the audio cast [...] Ah, thanks for that, I didn't realize it had been archived. > - Only few people attended (13 physically, a few on the text chat) - I > don't find that surprising at all, given the fact that it wasn't > announced in time, and no agenda was posted. In particular, with the > exception of Lisa Dusseault, none of the authors of the current > working group documents were present. I can only speak for myself but without grant money, or the backing of my employer (unlikely at best), I'll *never* be able to attend in person unless a meeting is held in the Bay Area. > - The meeting ended after less than 20 minutes (instead of the 2,5 > hours that were scheduled) and basically no technical questions were > discussed. From what I can tell, neither the proposed agenda (Julians') nor the stated agenda (from Jabber log) was followed closely or, at the very least items on the agenda were only addressed superficially. It would appear that items were tabled prematurely while there were still open questions and discussion to be finished. IMHO, the standing agenda for *any* working group meeting should be: (1) review the charter and current status / progress on WG deliverables and stated milestones (2) discuss each of the active documents in turn (a) address any open issues or concerns, seeking partial resolutions wherever possible to be ratified by the larger WG on the discussion list (b) make note of who is volunteering to follow up on action items, i.e. shephard the ensuing discussion on the mailing list, make edits to documents, etc. (3) drink Given the passionate discussion on the mailing list over some of the existing issues, I find it hard to believe that 2.5 hours would be enough time to meet in person and give a fair treatment to everything that should be on the table. > [...] Note that we don't need a WG to do useful work; but having a WG > that is incapable of making any decisions (or shipping documents that > are ready) means that the active contributors are basically wasting > their time fighting process barriers instead if doing meaningful > technical work. I'll address this a little more in subsequent emails but, as above, I feel there is significant benefit to working within the context of a formal IETF WG (visibility, established process, etc.). From what I can tell, going it alone greatly reduces the chance that any draft will make much progress in the long term. Inlakesh, Elias From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Fri Mar 18 20:16:08 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA00347 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:16:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DCSXr-0005C1-7Z for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:14:27 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DCSXi-00059E-Vp for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:14:18 +0000 Received: from services.cse.ucsc.edu ([128.114.48.10]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DCSXi-0004Kp-N2 for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:14:18 +0000 Received: from tycho (dhcp-59-157.cse.ucsc.edu [128.114.59.157]) by services.cse.ucsc.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j2J1E2QL001421; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:14:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200503190114.j2J1E2QL001421@services.cse.ucsc.edu> Reply-To: From: "Jim Whitehead" To: "'Julian Reschke'" Cc: Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 17:13:59 -0800 Organization: UC Santa Cruz MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcUrgazPSL/2sDRzSAW2CH3wYkahkgAnVqXQ In-Reply-To: <423A7139.4030408@gmx.de> Received-SPF: none (lisa.w3.org: domain of ejw@cs.ucsc.edu does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: RE: Review of quota-06 X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/200503190114.j2J1E2QL001421@services.cse.ucsc.edu Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9549 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 01:14:27 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julian Reschke writes: > I think it would be a useful feature if a client could detect > whether a write failed because of disk full rather than quota > exceeded (Unix and > NFS4 status codes allow the same distinction, see RFC3530, > "NFS4ERR_DQUOT" and "NFS4ERR_NOSPC"). So, if I understand you correctly, you're advocating the addition of a single additional error code to cover the storage media full case? > I'd like to understand why it's only optional on non-collections. Seems to me this is obvious. There are four cases: 1) No support collections, no support others: You don't implement the specification 2) Support collections, no support others: Frequent case, collections have quota information 3) Support collections, support others: Possibly frequent case, all resources give quota and used 4) No support collections, support others: This case isn't allowed in the specification, but seems unlikely to me, since collection support is so useful So, is it that you think case #4 is useful, and want it to be allowed? Or are you seeking clarification text to be added to the draft? > So for a server that implements user-based quota (which IMHO > is the most common way to implement it), DAV:quota-used-bytes > usually will be the > *same* for a collection and it's members. Ah, good point. Let me try again with some suggested text (the second paragraph is new, and based on your previous text): "Since there are many factors that affect the storage used by a set of resources, including automatic compression, the size of associated metadata, and server-inserted content (such as that created by PHP code) in the on-the-wire representation of resources, clients are advised to not depend on the value of DAV:quota-used-bytes being the sum of the DAV:getcontentlength properties for resources contained by a collection. Additionally, because there may be a number of distinct but overlapping sets of resources for which a DAV:quota-used-bytes is maintained (see Section 4), there may be no correlation between the size of the resources in a collection and DAV:quota-used-bytes. For example a server that implements user-based quotas, DAV:quota-used-bytes usually will be the same for a collection and it's members." If you have quibbles with this text, please suggest modifications to it in spec. language (it's easier than reading your mind :-) - Jim From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Sat Mar 19 04:44:27 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA29103 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 04:44:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DCaTD-0005Wi-W4 for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:42:12 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DCaT5-0005UL-DR for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:42:03 +0000 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by bart.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DCaT5-0005tC-2y for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:42:03 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2005 09:41:21 -0000 Received: from pD9E5144D.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.3]) [217.229.20.77] by mail.gmx.net (mp002) with SMTP; 19 Mar 2005 10:41:21 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <423BF3BB.8000507@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:41:15 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ejw@soe.ucsc.edu CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org References: <200503190114.j2J1E2QL001421@services.cse.ucsc.edu> In-Reply-To: <200503190114.j2J1E2QL001421@services.cse.ucsc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (bart.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Review of quota-06 X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/423BF3BB.8000507@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9550 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 09:42:11 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim Whitehead wrote: > Julian Reschke writes: > >>I think it would be a useful feature if a client could detect >>whether a write failed because of disk full rather than quota >>exceeded (Unix and >>NFS4 status codes allow the same distinction, see RFC3530, >>"NFS4ERR_DQUOT" and "NFS4ERR_NOSPC"). > > > So, if I understand you correctly, you're advocating the addition of a > single additional error code to cover the storage media full case? My personal preference was to leave disk limits out of quota, and to define separate properties and precondition codes for them. However, if people feel this is overkill spec-wise, the ability to distinguish both cases when an operation fails would be welcome (and a cheap addition). >>I'd like to understand why it's only optional on non-collections. > > > Seems to me this is obvious. There are four cases: > > 1) No support collections, no support others: You don't implement the > specification Yes. > 2) Support collections, no support others: Frequent case, collections have > quota information Why wouldn't the non-collection resources have quota information? > 3) Support collections, support others: Possibly frequent case, all > resources give quota and used Yes. > 4) No support collections, support others: This case isn't allowed in the > specification, but seems unlikely to me, since collection support is so > useful Yes. > > So, is it that you think case #4 is useful, and want it to be allowed? Or > are you seeking clarification text to be added to the draft? I'd simply like the spec to be as simple as possible. Adding a special distinction for case 2 doesn't seem to be that useful. >>So for a server that implements user-based quota (which IMHO >>is the most common way to implement it), DAV:quota-used-bytes >>usually will be the >>*same* for a collection and it's members. > > > Ah, good point. > > Let me try again with some suggested text (the second paragraph is new, and > based on your previous text): > > "Since there are many factors that affect the storage used by a set of > resources, including automatic compression, the size of associated metadata, > and server-inserted content (such as that created by PHP code) in the > on-the-wire representation of resources, clients are advised to not depend > on the value of DAV:quota-used-bytes being the sum of the > DAV:getcontentlength properties for resources contained by a collection. > > Additionally, because there may be a number of distinct but overlapping sets > of resources for which a DAV:quota-used-bytes is maintained (see Section 4), > there may be no correlation between the size of the resources in a > collection and DAV:quota-used-bytes. For example a server that implements > user-based quotas, DAV:quota-used-bytes usually will be the same for a > collection and it's members." > > If you have quibbles with this text, please suggest modifications to it in > spec. language (it's easier than reading your mind :-) No, the text is just fine. An alternative is not to say anything at all, but if we do say something, it at least needs to be correct :-) Best regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Sat Mar 19 05:35:46 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA02643 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 05:35:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DCbIG-0004xZ-Pk for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:34:56 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DCbI8-0004wP-TJ for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:34:48 +0000 Received: from mail.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by bart.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DCbI8-00076x-J2 for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:34:48 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2005 10:34:16 -0000 Received: from pD9E5144D.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.3]) [217.229.20.77] by mail.gmx.net (mp009) with SMTP; 19 Mar 2005 11:34:16 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 Message-ID: <423C001D.3020408@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:34:05 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ejw@soe.ucsc.edu CC: "'webdav'" References: <200503172354.j2HNsOVj015253@services.cse.ucsc.edu> In-Reply-To: <200503172354.j2HNsOVj015253@services.cse.ucsc.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Received-SPF: pass (bart.w3.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de designates 213.165.64.20 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Working group moving forward? X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/423C001D.3020408@gmx.de Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9551 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:34:56 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim Whitehead wrote: > ... >>My take on what I've seen in the last several months of the >>WebDAV working group is that if there was to be a BOF session >>today, I don't see any way that a working group would get >>approved. > > > Irrelevant. In 1996 there was a clear and present need for an interoperable > web authoring standard. At that time, the WebDAV BOF had a standing room > crowd. Of course there would be fewer people today, just as it would be hard > to have a broadly attended FTP BOF, or Telnet BOF. We're not in that phase > of development. We're in completion mode, not ramp up mode. It's never > exciting to dot the final "i" and cross the final "t". But, on the other hand, it's necessary. The Subversion guys just spent a lot of energy trying to design (and partly implement) support for a specific locking feature (lock null resources) that this WG has deprecated several years ago; yet all the (well, some) implementors see is RFC2518. >>As far as where we are now, some of the current drafts might >>make much better progress as individual submissions. > > > This is very unclear. The progress of individual submissions in the RFC > editor's queue, once they have received IESG approval, is glacial. They > never turn into RFCs. Working group documents fare much better in terms of > responsiveness. Data point: I submitted to the RFC Editor on Sept, 27, 2004 (almost 6 months ago). It's now at position 19 out of 36 entries in the state "INDEPENDENT SUBMISSIONS UNDER RFC EDITOR REVIEW", of which the oldest ones are from 2002). Note that this is just a waiting queue, not really a publication queue -- once it get's through this queue, it will be sent back to the Applications Area Director (right now Ted Hardie). >>Keep in mind that in the current process the WG chair has to shepard >>WG drafts through. As much as editors may not like this, it >>means that you have to get at least one WG chair fired >>up enough about your draft to take on this responsibility. > > > A Chair assumes certain duties when they take on the position of Chair. > > I do not see any process RFC that states that document authors are required > to generate enthusiasm in their Chairs. In particular, I'd argue that a draft being on the WG's charter SHOULD generate enough enthusiasm to help it getting through the process... Alternatively, the chairs should update the charter. > I think the WebDAV Working Group can very usefully serve two more purposes, > neither of which needs to take much time. > > 1) Complete BIND. > 2) Complete Quota. > > Both are very close to completion. Once these two are done, then it seems > reasonable to disband WebDAV WG. Given how close these two documents are to > ... In which case we should also discuss what's the best way to make progress on RFC2518bis outside a WG. Best regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Sat Mar 19 11:37:32 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05546 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:37:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DCgva-0006JF-M2 for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:35:54 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DCgvT-0006FV-K2 for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:35:47 +0000 Received: from kahuna.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by bart.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DCgvT-0005BJ-Ci for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:35:47 +0000 Old-X-Envelope-From: lisa@osafoundation.org Old-X-Envelope-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([198.144.201.116]) (authenticated bits=0) by kahuna.osafoundation.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j2JGZbaa008332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 19 Mar 2005 08:35:39 -0800 In-Reply-To: <423BF3BB.8000507@gmx.de> References: <200503190114.j2J1E2QL001421@services.cse.ucsc.edu> <423BF3BB.8000507@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, ejw@soe.ucsc.edu From: Lisa Dusseault Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 08:34:27 -0800 To: Julian Reschke X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 127.0.0.1 Received-SPF: pass (bart.w3.org: domain of lisa@osafoundation.org designates 204.152.186.98 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Re: Review of quota-06 X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/d53e85cae251e63cbeca1e9b586220b4@osafoundation.org Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9552 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:35:54 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mar 19, 2005, at 1:41 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Jim Whitehead wrote: >> So, if I understand you correctly, you're advocating the addition of a >> single additional error code to cover the storage media full case? > > My personal preference was to leave disk limits out of quota, and to > define separate properties and precondition codes for them. However, > if people feel this is overkill spec-wise, the ability to distinguish > both cases when an operation fails would be welcome (and a cheap > addition). Is there anybody who would implement a separate property for disk limit (in addition to, or instead of a property for quota)? I haven't seen a direct request for this, it's only been brought up in the context of whether or not the quota property should exclude this concept. I'd be happy with a separate error for the separate case. That doesn't seem like overkill. Lisa From w3c-dist-auth-request@frink.w3.org Sat Mar 26 04:02:07 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA05062 for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 04:02:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DF79T-0003IM-IK for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:00:15 +0000 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DF79P-00033r-Rh for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:00:11 +0000 Received: from smtp.founder.com ([218.249.26.6]) by bart.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DF79H-0006sy-WF for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:00:11 +0000 Received: from founder.com (smtp.founder.com [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.founder.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with SMTP id j2Q8xAbr001183 for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:59:10 +0800 X-Received: unknown,162.105.184.7,20050326165909 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.founderrd.com) (162.105.184.7) by localhost with SMTP; 26 Mar 2005 08:59:09 -0000 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C531E1.C9D88CA0" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:57:07 +0800 Message-ID: <09881EB3FAB51E47BCFF076FEAFF75F038101D@rdmail.rd.founderrd.com> Thread-Topic: Hello, I am new here Thread-Index: AcUx4cnV1NnK2QxfReqCSFy6y5vGqg== From: =?gb2312?B?d2FuZ2RvbmcozfW2sCk=?= To: Received-SPF: none (bart.w3.org: domain of wangdong@founderrd.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Hello, I am new here X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/09881EB3FAB51E47BCFF076FEAFF75F038101D@rdmail.rd.founderrd.com Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9553 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:00:15 +0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C531E1.C9D88CA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C531E1.C9D88CA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C531E1.C9D88CA0-- From w3c-dist-auth-request@frink.w3.org Mon Mar 28 21:26:11 2005 Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08847 for ; Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:26:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DG6Ot-0007Xn-Vj for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:24:15 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DG6Om-0007X3-UZ for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:24:08 +0000 Received: from kahuna.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DG6Om-0006Jc-MP for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:24:08 +0000 Old-X-Envelope-From: lisa@osafoundation.org Old-X-Envelope-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Received: from [192.168.101.178] (w002.z065106067.sjc-ca.dsl.cnc.net [65.106.67.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by kahuna.osafoundation.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j2T2O4aa019224 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:24:05 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <7656c33fd0e4d5fa9ad21ec9d1c0e8ae@osafoundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed To: webdav WG , minutes@ietf.org From: Lisa Dusseault Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:23:58 -0800 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.48 on 127.0.0.1 Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of lisa@osafoundation.org designates 204.152.186.98 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: Minutes for WebDAV WG meeting March 10 2005 X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/7656c33fd0e4d5fa9ad21ec9d1c0e8ae@osafoundation.org Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/9554 X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:24:15 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I attempted to send this last week but don't see it in the WG list archive so I'm sending again. For the proceedings: note that there was no presentation material, so these minutes complete the record for the proceedings. ------ Agenda - Agenda bashing - drafts: BIND, Quota, Redirect, 2518bis - Meta: charter revision, individual submissions BIND Chairs asked if there were any new comments on Bind. There were none. Joe talked about the last call and remaining issues and lack of quorum. The last call happened before the cutoff dates for this IETF, but chairs need to figure out if it's appropriate to do an IETF/IESG last call. Anybody here planning on implementing BIND? It is already implemented in SAP Netweaver and Apache Slide. Julian Reschke is both author of the draft and participates on behalf of Netweaver. There was some question on whether the implementors reviewed the document recently (but again note that one of the implementors is author of the draft). Nobody from the Apache Slide effort was participating as far as we could tell. QUOTA A new draft of quota was produced recently with some functionality removed. At this point we're waiting for author's feedback. REDIRECT Redirect draft: progress waiting on author's implementation (Netweaver again) to push forward) RFC2518BIS RFC2518bis work: Chairs attempted to find an author with the time and focus to go ahead with 2518bis but haven't been successful. Julian noted that he'd volunteered. Joe pointed out that Julian already has plenty on his plate. META What is the WG here for and how do we move forward? What should the charter be, or is there enough interest or participation? If there are only a couple individuals doing work, maybe they should be individual submissions anyway. If there isn't enough work and discussion in the WG, maybe it doesn't make sense to have this format of discussion. If none of the people participating in the discussion, coming to the meetings, is this the right format for this. Scott pointed out that Ted was absent this IETF and we'd wait for him to return for decisions like this. We'll take this to list and see if there's any discussion, rebuttal