Subject: Redirect summary

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:25:47 -0700

I've traced through my email both to the list and private and tried to put
together the following key points out Redirect.

There are some people that want to be able to solve this problem.

There are multiple ways that it could be solved with, I have received email
about at least three that are in use.

Some people feel the approach proposed in the redirect draft is too complex
and do not plan to use it.

Some people feel the functionality in the redirect draft is not enough and
specifically it does not address authoring of tree-mappings or pattern
matching. 

There are extremely limited number of implementations or groups that intend
to implement this draft.

We can barely find anyone to review it.

There are some issues involving locking that could probably be refined in
the draft but that is not the big issue.

The points above lead me down the following line of thinking... I'm having a
hard time coming to the conclusion that a significant portion of the
community feels this is the best approach. However, it is an approach, it
works, and if nothing is documented, the community may never converge on any
interoperable approach so there is value in documenting this approach.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-info-exp-01.txt has some
information about experimental and informational

I'd like to get the WG feedback about moving this forward as "Experimental".
Note that this would not stop this approach from becoming standards track it
it became clear over time that it was the approach that the community wanted
to recommend for solving this problem.

Cullen

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:28:56 +0200

Cullen Jennings wrote:
> ...

I think that would be the right approach. However, before proceeding, 
I'd like to fix the Depth header vs Apply-To-Redirect-Ref issue that 
Jake B. reported (trying to get this done this week).

Best regards, Julian