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
> 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 w
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 wou
> 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.
Having said that, it is perfectly reasona
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.
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceChangeProtocolCharter
Abstract
--
Require upwards-compatibility with WebDAV.
Status
--
Open
Author
--
Robert Sayre
Rationale
