Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 07:56:39 -0400

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the WWW Distributed Authoring and Versioning Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring û WebDAV 
                          RFC2518 bis
	Author(s)	: Y. Goland et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-02.txt
	Pages		: 87
	Date		: 2002-9-17
	
WebDAV consists of a set of methods, headers, and content-types 
ancillary to HTTP/1.1 for the management of resource properties, 
creation and management of resource collections, namespace 
manipulation, and resource locking (collision avoidance). 
RFC2518 was published in February 1998, and this draft makes only 
minor revisions mostly due to interoperability experience.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-02.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-02.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-02.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:28:45 +0200

Sorry,

but I really have a problem with the process here. Why is the I-D submitted
*before* there is consensus on the changes?

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:57 PM
> To: IETF-Announce:
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-02.txt
>
>

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:33:21 -0700

A draft is not a consensus document.  The draft contains specific text,
and it is often necessary to see the specific text to find out if there
is consensus.

WG consensus is required to bring the draft to the IESG, not to publish
a draft.

lisa

> From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]
> On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 5:29 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-02.txt
> 
> 
> Sorry,
>

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:43:51 -0700

> *before* there is consensus on the changes?
To be clear, I thought that for all the issues in the draft, either:
 - they weren't controversial,
 - OR they were controversial but consensus (not unanimity) was close.

And in any case, it's the exact wording that needs to be seen to
determine real consensus.  When I-D's are published, it's correct to
publish them to the I-D repository, rather than just circulate them on
the list.  If we were only to circulate a RFC2518-bis text document on
the DAV list, then non-list-members wouldn't have the same awareness and
accessibility to the document that they have if documents are published
correctly.

Also, I thought this goes without saying, but nobody is implying that
this I-D is anywhere ready for WG last call.  There are major unresolved
issues.

We always encourage discussion and if desired straw polls on the list. 

lisa

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 18:49:59 +0200

Lisa,

it's just that I think a *lot* of bad mood could be avoided if there was a
time window between edits on the I-D and the actual submission. As you have
seen, many of the changes you made *are* controversial. So maybe the
approach the WG is/was using for the ACL draft makes more sense (submit when
stable instead of submit when new)?

Julian

> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 6:44 PM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; [email-masked]

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 09:57:39 -0700

I replied in private mail, but again, here's the relevant standards on
this issue:

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
"The Internet-Drafts directories are available to provide authors with
the ability to distribute and solicit comments on documents they may
eventually submit to the IESG for publication as an RFC."

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt;
" During the development of a specification, draft versions of the
   document are made available for informal review and comment by
   placing them in the IETF's "Internet-Drafts" directory, which is
   replicated on a number of Internet hosts.  This makes an evolving
   working document readily available to a wide audience, facilitating
   the process of review and revision."

I won't take a stand on whether it was wrong of the ACL editors to
circulate drafts in such a manner that you had to be a mailing list
member in order to know there was new text to look at.  It's a grey
area, because when multiple authors are working on a new document, it's
important to be able to share it.  

I firmly believe that it is correct for a draft to go to the IETF
Internet-Draft repository when it is circulated to the entire WG mailing
list.  I would be happy to have Patrick, Ned or Harald correct me on
this.

Lisa

> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 9:50 AM
> To: Lisa Dusseault; [email-masked]
> approach the WG is/was using for the ACL draft makes more sense
(submit
> when

---

From: Greg Stein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 01:58:35 -0700

On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 09:57:39AM -0700, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>...

I *completely* agree with your position, Lisa. I don't think Julian should
have taken any issue with the posting of a new I-D. Having a new I-D
provides a concrete draft for further discussion and refinement. People can
now refer to the -02 draft, rather than some nebulous concept of "lisa's
draft as of last Tuesday".

Please keep sending in new I-D's each time you have additional content.
You've got at least one supporter here :-)

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/