Subject: Next Steps

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:14:21 -0800

Over a year ago the AD for the WG wrote the following:

   On Nov 18, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: The document as it
   stands improves on 2518 in some critical ways, and if the working
   group cannot complete it, that will leave the engineering community
   which needs the spec considerably worse off.  The IESG will not
   consider an individual submission on this if the working group has
   just failed to come to consensus, and I hope everyone understands
   that.  This is the opportunity to replace 2518 with something
   better, and we need to take advantage of it.

We as a working group have extended way past the time Ted made  
available to us - we have made some progress but the rate of progress  
has pretty much stalled. I have reviewed all the issues in the bug  
tracker and changes in Julian's draft. I believe that out all of the  
critical issues that would cause interoperability problems, all the  
ones that we have consensus on have been incorporated into the WG  
document. In my opinion, this document is significantly better than  
2518.

I am very thankful for all the work both Julian and Lisa have put  
into various stages of this. Although a large percentage of the  
issues Julian has raised or proposed changes for are in the WG  
document, I do not believe that we have any chance of getting  
consensus on the remaining issues. As several folks recall we spent  
an insane number of hours on the phone working through them last  
fall, and I have just gone and checked with a number of WG members  
and it's clear that there's not consensus here. Lisa is the document  
editor and her job is to put in changes that reflect WG consensus.

So where does that leave us?

I do not believe the WG has the energy to make significant progress  
beyond what we have already accomplished. At this point, there are  
only two possible outcomes:

- Advance the document more-or-less as-is, perhaps with very minor  
changes.
- Disband the working group.

Given these two options, the relatively small number of remaining WG  
participants, and the apparent lack of consensus between those who  
remain, it falls to me as chair to figure out how to move forward.  
Clearly, this document is imperfect, but I believe it improves on  
2518, and because DAV is an important piece of our infrastructure the  
larger community - not just this working group - needs to have an  
opportunity to decide whether it should advance.

Accordingly, I am forwarding this document to Ted. However, I do take  
the concerns Julian raises very seriously. Therefore, I plan to  
arrange a conference call between Julian, Ted, and myself to discuss  
Julian's concerns with him. I'll be contacting Julian privately to  
arrange that call.

The next step is for Ted to review the document and decide if it  
should proceed to IETF Last Call and IESG Review.

Cullen <with my chair hat on>