Subject: Charter update: remove property registry task?

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:38:58 -0800

I'd like to find out if there is consensus on removing the "property 
registry" task from the WebDAV WG charter.

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/webdav-charter.html

We've attempted to discuss this at various WG meetings, and we've never 
made any clear progress in defining the task -- so we don't even know 
whether this would be an Internet-Draft that could become an RFC, 
possibly defining an IANA process, or whether this would be a site or 
non-IANA process of some kind.  We also have never had a volunteer so 
we've never had anybody working on this item.  Perhaps nobody's ever 
found it to be really necessary.

Note that even if it's removed from the charter, progress can still be 
made if somebody finds the motivation.  For example, a property 
registry site could be developed with feedback from the Working Group, 
even if it's not a WG deliverable.

If we don't remove it from the charter, then we need volunteers ASAP to 
work on that item, and clear ideas what the WG deliverable really is.  
Please weigh in.

Lisa

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:40:00 -0800

Sorry, I meant to put a time limit on feedback -- we'll try to come to 
a conclusion in 2 weeks so please hold discussion in that time. thanks!

Lisa

On Mar 23, 2004, at 11:38 AM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> We've attempted to discuss this at various WG meetings, and we've 
> never made any clear progress in defining the task -- so we don't even 
> know whether this would be an Internet-Draft that could become an RFC, 
> If we don't remove it from the charter, then we need volunteers ASAP 
> to work on that item, and clear ideas what the WG deliverable really 
> is.  Please weigh in.
>
> Lisa
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:57:17 +0100

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> made if somebody finds the motivation.  For example, a property registry 
> site could be developed with feedback from the Working Group, even if 
> it's not a WG deliverable.
> 

I vote for removing it. Clearly there's no energy for working on a 
universal registry, nor do we seem to need it.

Related: I've been working on scripts that compile information about 
method names, header names, property names, pre/postcondition names (and 
so on) from a set of RFC2629-XML-formatted documents. Basically I'm 
using a set of well-defined entries of index entries, and just combine 
them into a common document. This will give us the property index at 
least for all working-group documents (it's not quite ready yet, but if 
people are interested, I can produce an example in the next few days).

Regards, Julian

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

---

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 20:44:20 -0500

+1 for removing it.

Cheers,
Geoff

> > We've attempted to discuss this at various WG meetings, and we've 
never 

> > made if somebody finds the motivation.  For example, a property 
registry 
> > If we don't remove it from the charter, then we need volunteers ASAP 
to

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:25:06 +0100

As co-chair for this wg I must state I do not want to see things like 
this in mail which explicitly by Lisa, myself or anyone else is talking 
about one and only one issue.

If you want to talk about related issues, create a new thread.

Please.

     paf

On Mar 23, 2004, at 20:57, Julian Reschke wrote:

> method names, header names, property names, pre/postcondition names 
> (and so on) from a set of RFC2629-XML-formatted documents. Basically 
> I'm using a set of well-defined entries of index entries, and just 
> combine them into a common document. This will give us the property 
> index at least for all working-group documents (it's not quite ready 
> yet, but if people are interested, I can produce an example in the 
> next few days).

---

From: Stefan Eissing <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:37:27 +0100

+1 for removing it.

Am 23.03.2004 um 20:40 schrieb Lisa Dusseault:

>> never made any clear progress in defining the task -- so we don't 
>> even know whether this would be an Internet-Draft that could become 
>> an RFC, possibly defining an IANA process, or whether this would be a 
>> site or non-IANA process of some kind.  We also have never had a 
>> volunteer so we've never had anybody working on this item.  Perhaps 
>> nobody's ever found it to be really necessary.
>>
>> Note that even if it's removed from the charter, progress can still 
>> be made if somebody finds the motivation.  For example, a property 
>> registry site could be developed with feedback from the Working 
>> Group, even if it's not a WG deliverable.
>>

---

From: Elias Sinderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:39:37 -0800

> registry" task from the WebDAV WG charter. 

+1, it can always be revived in the future if interest grows.

Elias