Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

Cullen Jennings schrieb: On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: Hi, RFC2518bis updates parts of RFC3253 (DAV:error below DAV:response) in an incompatible way, and thus should note it in the front matter ("Updates: 3253") and mention it as a change near the Changes Appendix. (se

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: Hi, RFC2518bis updates parts of RFC3253 (DAV:error below DAV:response) in an incompatible way, and thus should note it in the front matter ("Updates: 3253") and mention it as a change near the Changes Appendix. (see

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

Ted Hardie schrieb: At 1:36 PM -0800 1/19/07, Kevin Wiggen wrote: I think what the spec needs is some love and attention. If enough of us (and I will volunteer to READ and COMMENT) spend time on this, I think we can come to some sort of resolution. I would hate to see the work done by the wo

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

This sounds very sensible to me. Regards, Manfred Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: First, my appreciation to everyone that has participated in the recent push to produce a revision of RFC-2518. I have reviewed rfc2518bis-17, as well as the remaining issues in bugzilla and the document:

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

First, my appreciation to everyone that has participated in the recent push to produce a revision of RFC-2518. I have reviewed rfc2518bis-17, as well as the remaining issues in bugzilla and the document: I believe th

RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

Behalf Of Cullen Jennings Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 12:44 PM To: Manfred Baedke; Geoffrey M Clemm Cc: ietf@ietf.org; WebDav Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard Julian's draft has been around

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

Hi, RFC2518bis updates parts of RFC3253 (DAV:error below DAV:response) in an incompatible way, and thus should note it in the front matter ("Updates: 3253") and mention it as a change near the Changes Appendix. (see ) Best regar

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

On Jan 19, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: Cullen, I was tempted to finish that mail with "and thanks for the fish", in honor of Douglas Adams, but I resisted. lol :-) Anyway, please understand that I don't want to make your or Ted's life harder than it needs to be. I just fee

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

I certainly consider Geoff and Manfred part of the WG. I don't think any of these were ignored my Lisa or me, I've read everyone one of them several times. I think that for WG did not come to consensus to adopt these into the WG draft. Cullen On Jan 19, 2007, at 12:58 PM, Julian Resc

RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

At 1:36 PM -0800 1/19/07, Kevin Wiggen wrote: >I think what the spec needs is some love and attention. If enough of us (and >I will volunteer to READ and COMMENT) spend time on this, I think we can come >to some sort of resolution. I would hate to see the work done by the working >group, Geoff

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

Julian Reschke schrieb: Cullen, ... OK, this was intended to be off-list. Sorry for that. Everybody please ignore everything, or at least the parts that don't parse. Best regards, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

Cullen, I was tempted to finish that mail with "and thanks for the fish", in honor of Douglas Adams, but I resisted. Anyway, please understand that I don't want to make your or Ted's life harder than it needs to be. I just feel that the document is not good. And I'm going to continue to say

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

Cullen Jennings schrieb: Julian's draft has been around for a very long time and I think that you have suggested we just adopt it before so the WG certainly has been aware of this option. The bulk of this draft has been available to the WG for many months if not years and the WG did choose to

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

Julian's draft has been around for a very long time and I think that you have suggested we just adopt it before so the WG certainly has been aware of this option. The bulk of this draft has been available to the WG for many months if not years and the WG did choose to use text out of part

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

Cullen Jennings schrieb: ... (4b) Unnecessary new requirements: an example is the new (MUST-level) requirement to submit a Depth header with PROPFIND (issue 213). This is just one of several cases where the draft made changes for no apparent reason; that is, there was no problem with what RFC2

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

Ted Hardie schrieb: At 5:42 PM +0100 1/15/07, Julian Reschke wrote: (2) Compatibility with RFC2518 The Last Call announcement states: While the WEBDAV working group was originally chartered to produce a draft standard update to RFC 2518, this documented is being targeted as a replacement Prop

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

WIth my WebDAV WG Chair hat on I would like to make a few comments. On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:42 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: ... snip... (4) Examples for open issues (4a) One of the things RFC2518bis was supposed to fix was the confusion around locking. Right now, it fails big time. For instanc

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

At 5:42 PM +0100 1/15/07, Julian Reschke wrote: >(2) Compatibility with RFC2518 > >The Last Call announcement states: > >> While the WEBDAV working group was originally chartered to produce a >> draft standard update to RFC 2518, this documented is being targeted >> as a replacement Proposed Standa

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis (HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV) to Proposed Standard

The IESG schrieb: > The IESG has received a request from the WWW Distributed Authoring and > Versioning WG (webdav) to consider the following document: > > - 'HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV ' > as a Proposed Standard > ... The short answer: this draft fixes a number of wel