[Fwd: WGLC of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-14.txt]

Previous Topic Next Topic
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

[Fwd: WGLC of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-14.txt]

Julian Reschke


the IETF WebDAV working group finally has produced a draft for the
revision of RFC2518 that we feel can be last-called in the working group
-- see Cullen's announcement below.

At this point it would be great to get feedback from people who
currently do not follow the WebDAV working group's mailing list, but who
do have an interest in HTTP, authoring, and related areas.

The last-called draft is at
Diffs between individual drafts can be found at
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis/>. Changes
to RFC2518 are (hopefully completely) summarized in Appendix E (see

Discussion takes place on the WebDAV mailing list
(<mailto:[hidden email]>), which may be joined by sending a
message with subject "subscribe" to
<mailto:[hidden email]>. Discussions of the WebDAV working
group are archived at <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/>.

There's also a bug tracker at <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/>,
which may be useful to find out whether a particular issue already has
been raised. For new issues, please report them to the mailing list
first, though.

(I am sending this announcement to various mailing lists, so you may get
multiple copies. Apologies.)

Best regards, Julian

-------- Original Message --------
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:42:18 -0800
From: Cullen Jennings <[hidden email]>
To: WebDav <[hidden email]>

I am absolutely thrilled to be able to Working Group Last Call (WGLC)
draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis. The WGLC will end on March 15, 2006.

I am aware of one complex open issue with this version of the draft. The
use of ETAGs in the response to a HTTP PUT is not exactly clear in the
HTTP spec and this has implications for WebDAV. Some folks are working
on a draft to clarify this in HTTP. I'm sure this issue will be
discussed during the Last Call.

On minor issues, Julian will be proposing new text for bug 143.

The "if header" section needs particularly careful review.

I would like to ask everyone to read this. We really need to get some
fresh eyes reading this document. Did we get it right? Is there enough
detail that you can implement it? Does this clarify previous
interoperable problems?

Thank you,

I'd like to take this moment to thank the several contributors that put
in a ton of work to make this happen and to all the folks on the mailing
list that put up with the roughly two thousand email posts from
bugzilla. I really hope the volume of these will be reducing.