Subject: RE: Links to latest bis working docs

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:25:31 -0400

I agree with Julian.  Since the consensus of the working group
was to reject the Translate header approach (for the reasons
Julian mentions, and others), I believe it should not be introduced
in the revised document, and definitely should not be characterized as an
"interoperable solution".

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 2:37 PM
To: Lisa Dusseault; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Links to latest bis working docs

Just two comments on:

1.1       Source property
The Source property has not had interoperability demonstrated, but messages
to the list support keeping some way of retrieving the source of
dynamically-generated Web pages.  An interoperable solution exists (the
Microsoft Translate header) but has received rejection on the list due to
its lack of support for dynamically-generated resources with multiple source
files.

- the Translate header violates RFC2616 which explicitly says that variant
handling is *not* supposed to switch between "getting the source" and
"executing a script"

- the actual implementation in IIS breaks RFC2616 in that it doesn't list
"Translate" as request header on which the GET result varies.

Regards, Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 5:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Links to latest bis working docs

I promised yesterday I'd put up links to the most recent work-in-progress.
http://www.sharemation.com/~milele/public/dav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis.d
oc
http://www.sharemation.com/~milele/public/dav/RFC2518%20Changes.doc
Sometime after the Interop, I'll be doing the real formatted draft thing of
course.
Lisa

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:05:35 -0700

Please note that the "Translate" header does not appear in the "revised
[2518] document".  

The "RFC2518 Changes" document discusses issues that have been brought
up on the list -- including the proposal that had been made, on the
list, to standardize the Translate header.  This document is only to
help keep track of issues (together with Jason's page) and RFC bis
changes, and is not on any standards track.  Note also that this
document briefly, and I believe correctly, summarizes that the working
group rejected the solution.  

If you still have problems with this characterization and where it
appears, please explain.

Lisa

> From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]
> On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 12:26 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Sometime after the Interop, I'll be doing the real formatted draft
thing
> of

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:09:25 +0200

Lisa,

my complaint was that it lists only one of many reasons for rejecting yet,
but also states that there are interoperable implementations. They may
exist, but at least one of them (IIS) does not conform to RFC2616 (HTTP), so
I don't think it qualifies as relevant implementation.

Julian

> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 10:06 PM
> To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> > Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:37:13 -0700

Yes, I have little problem with including more information in the
*extremely brief* summary of the debate.  It is always difficult to
summarize a debate, whether briefly or at length.  I had thought that
that putting the summary in a non-standards-track document would be
safe.

I still believe that "interoperable" is a fair characterization, however
I can also add the words "non-compliant".  If we go about qualifying
implementations based on full compliance, I fear that random software
bugs would disqualify many many implementations.

lisa

> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 1:09 PM
> To: Lisa Dusseault; 'Clemm, Geoff'; [email-masked]
> exist, but at least one of them (IIS) does not conform to RFC2616
(HTTP),
> so
> > > in the revised document, and definitely should not be
characterized as
> > an
> > > Microsoft Translate header) but has received rejection on the list
due
> > to
> > > its lack of support for dynamically-generated resources with
multiple
> > > source
> > > - the actual implementation in IIS breaks RFC2616 in that it
doesn't
> > list

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 01:24:05 +0200

Lisa,

it probably would be safer just to say that there was a discussion and to
point to the relevant mailig list archive enties.

The problem with the "interoperable solution" is that the "solution"
*itself* is in conflict with the base spec RFC2616 (HTTP), so by definition
it can't be the protocol that an RFC based on HTTP recommends.

Julian

> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 10:37 PM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Clemm, Geoff'; [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:28:21 -0600 (MDT)

Please remove me from this mailing list!! I ve been trying to unsubscribe
with no result.!
thanks