Subject: Re: RFC2518bis, was: BIND and live property value consistency

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:12:41 -0700

On 7/8/05 2:57 PM, "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> 
>> So what's your proposal how we the WG should proceed. In particular,
>> what about the state of the issues list I asked about?
>> 
> That's up to Cullen, and I don't know the state of the issues list except
> that it's out-of-date.

I was trying to get bind and redirect out the door before jumping into 2518
but ... I hoping to get this done with the underlying principle being make
the AD's job as easy as possible and after that make the Chair's job as easy
as possible :-) 

1) So first thing is to get a draft we can talk about, Lisa submitted a rev
so we have that. 

2) Next is we need to figure out the things people want to change and why.
Note I said things people want to change not things people don't like.
Complaints without proposal to fix are not as useful as ways to resolve
problems. I don't care how the editor of any document wants to keep track of
these but I do expect them to be reported to the editor in a way that at
least shows up on the email list.

3) I imagine most of these the WG will come to 100% agreement on and I can
completely ignore. 

4) On the issues where one or more members of the WG disagree, I will want
to start an email thread on each issue and try and drive it to consensus.
This thread will need to develop enough information that I can provide a
useful summary to the ADs and information about why I called or did not call
consensus on the topic. If there are so many of these that we can't keep
track of them via email threads, then there is clearly no hope of consensus
and I will probably recommend not moving the document forward as a WG item.
(I'm fine if there are a 100 issues at step 3 but I hope there are less than
10 that make it to step 4).

Cullen

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:27:01 +0200

Cullen Jennings wrote:
> ...

So can we please consider the union of 
<http://www.webdav.org/wg/rfcdev/issues.htm> and 
<http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?product=WebDAV-RFC2518-bis> 
as current issues list?

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Elias Sinderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 13:52:10 -0700

Julian Reschke wrote:

> [...] So can we please consider the union of 

I would think this to be a reasonable starting point for the upcoming 
efforts.

Re: Bugzilla, are we intending to continue tracking issues on the 
bugzilla installation? I would be in favor of this for a number of 
reasons that I'll skip over here. (I'll happily enumerate them if asked, 
but one should think they them to be rather self-evident and well 
understood.) Assuming all are in favor of this approach, someone will 
need to take on the task of importing the issues listed on the 
webdav.org site into bugzilla. . .

For historical and other reasons it would be desireable to import all of 
the issues listed, although a certain amount of pragmatism would dictate 
that closed issues could be safely omitted. At the very least, an email 
should be sent to the mailing list with a summary of the already closed 
issues as detailed within the webdav.org list.

Following the import into bugzilla, it would seem straightforward to go 
through them one-by-one in seperate threads.

Cheers,
Elias