Subject: Agenda for 11/30 telecon

From: Elias Sinderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:39:15 -0800

Hello all,

Enclosed please find the agenda for tomorrows' telecon. Although there 
are a few more issues than previous weeks, better than a handful of them 
have already been discussed and should go quickly. I've also attempted 
to gather together various issues dealing with namespace operations in 
the hope that maintaining some context through the discussion will also 
help things move along. Of course, anything that we don't get to will be 
bumped to the next telecon.

Cheers,
Elias
_______________

(1) Brief (5 min) status update from Lisa on the -09 draft; set date if 
not already posted.

(2) Quickly (10 - 15 minutes?) address the following issues
9 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9> - XML 
namespace discussion (terminology issue)
47 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47> - 3xx in 
multistatus (missing section in  -08)
102 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102> - lock 
tokens in examples (XML formatting issue)
172 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172> - 
Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it (consensus 
issue)
12 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12> - 
Destination header "consistent" (nits)

(3) Bug bashing
Critical:
173 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173> - Info 
about <location> inside multistatus lost
Major:
7 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7> - Example 
for PROPFIND/allprop missing
     (Important but easy to address.)
51 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51> - 
Property behaviour upon COPY vs "remote COPY"
       (Is this covered by the discussion of issue 27, COPY with live 
properties?)
28 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28> - MOVE vs 
live properties
       (Also related to the discussion of issue 27 in the 11/25 telecon.)
85 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85> - 
clarification of live property behaviour vs namespace ops needed
       (This seems to follow logically from issue 28, above; perhaps a 
non-issue now.)
93 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93> - Write 
Locks and Collections vs MOVE
       (More on namespace operations.)
94 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94> - COPY 
and the Overwrite Header vs
       (Yet another issue related to namespace operations.)
48 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48> - XML 
extensibility description
       (Should be relatively easy to reach consensus on this one)
95 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95> - 
possible LOCK response codes
171 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171> - If 
header grammar
         (Check production rules.)
Normal:
10 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10> - 
Round-tripping namespace decls in properties
       (Need to hammer out text, as none has been proposed)
Minor:
186 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186> - 
opaquelocktoken appendix
         (Perhaps resolved in earlier discussion of issue 172.)
Trivial:
174 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=174> - 
Terminology in 4.4: "namespace name in scope"
         (Should be easy to reach consensus.)

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:47:38 +0100

Elias,

thanks for the agenda.

I've worked on some of the issues, attendees of the conference call (and 
of course everybody else) may want to check the following proposed 
changes (maybe having spec-ready text will help resolving these issues 
quickly).

> Whether to obsolete 'opaquelocktoken', keep it, or remove it (consensus 

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#opaquelocktoken>

>        (Need to hammer out text, as none has been proposed)

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#property_values>

>          (Perhaps resolved in earlier discussion of issue 172.)

(again) 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#opaquelocktoken>

>          (Should be easy to reach consensus.)

gone with the proposed rewrite 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#property_values>)

Best regards, Julian