Re: PaceChangeProtocolCharter
John Panzer wrote: I realize it's late for new Paces. It is not late for protocol Paces. [1] In fact my original PaceSimpleResourcePosting had verbiage discussing WebDAV compatibility, which was stripped out during the editing process as irrelevant when it was incorporated into the draft. I understood at the time that it was irrelevant because WebDAV compatibility was assumed; was I wrong? IIRC, the WebDAV text was stripped as part of the chairs' read on consensus, so the editors did not include it. I don't the answer to your last question. Robert Sayre
Re: PaceChangeProtocolCharter
Scott Hollenbeck wrote: Proposal -- Adjust the charter as follows: Please keep in mind that charter revisions MUST be reviewed by the IETF as a whole and approved by the IESG. They can not be made unilaterally by the working group. I understand that. It would also be acceptable for us to decide to make it compatible, without changing the charter, correct? Much like we could've guaranteed questions from our A.D. about date formats [0], I would also expect our A.D. to ask some questions if we reinvent several features already found in WebDAV. Robert Sayre [0] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg06611.html
RE: PaceChangeProtocolCharter
I understand that. It would also be acceptable for us to decide to make it compatible, without changing the charter, correct? As long as that goal doesn't conflict with other chartered work items, yes. Much like we could've guaranteed questions from our A.D. about date formats [0], I would also expect our A.D. to ask some questions if we reinvent several features already found in WebDAV. Why? WebDAV reuse isn't currently a required part of what this group is supposed to be doing. Sure, I might ask questions if it looks like there's overlap and reuse of existing work might save something, but if it's not a requirement (and it currently isn't) it won't necessarily be a significant issue if reasonable alternatives are described instead. -Scott-
Re: PaceChangeProtocolCharter
Scott Hollenbeck wrote: Much like we could've guaranteed questions from our A.D. about date formats [0], I would also expect our A.D. to ask some questions if we reinvent several features already found in WebDAV. Why? WebDAV reuse isn't currently a required part of what this group is supposed to be doing. Sure, I might ask questions if it looks like there's overlap and reuse of existing work might save something, I just wrote if we reinvent. If we don't, WebDAV isn't very relevant. but if it's not a requirement (and it currently isn't) it won't necessarily be a significant issue if reasonable alternatives are described instead. I guess this policy is why we have things like XCAP (reasonable... but why?). It'll be interesting to see if the protocol can manage its current requirements without running afoul of RFC2616, RFC3986, and BCP56. It's my opinion that it probably will if it isn't WebDAV-compatible, but everyone might decide to look the other way. Robert Sayre
