Subject: RFC2518bis

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:54:57 -0800

Howdy,
	The Secretariat will announce this more formally on Monday,
but I wanted to let the working group know that the IESG's evaluation
of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-18.txt was positive.  There was considerable
discussion in the weeks leading up to today's telechat about how
to handle the combination of concerns (issues raised, length of process,
number of active contributors).  Lisa and Cullen recused themselves from
the IESG ballot (as author and WG chair), and the single DISCUSS from Russ
was resolved in conversation.
	The end result of the ballot represents consensus among the IESG that
the current document was sufficiently solid to be published as Proposed Standard,
that there were enough improvements in it to replace 2518, and that the work
needed a checkpoint.  This last is, honestly, a management issue as much as a
standards one; by putting a stake in the ground that says:  "further discussions
start from here", you can avoid the energy for progress evaporating in discussions
that recycle around the same few hot spots.  To highlight that aspect, I have
added this to the write-up for publication:

>There does remain some dissent that this document is the best that could
>be achieved, and there were proposals to continue work based on other
>starting points. The number of  contributors committed to that course of
>action was, however, smaller than would be normal for an active working
>group.  Publication of this document provides  a checkpoint of improvements to
>serve as the basis of implementation and potential later work.  It does
>not close off later improvement.

	So, what are the steps from here?   The Secretariat will make an
announcement that the document was approved some time early
next week.  Shortly following that, I will ask them to close the working group
as a formal entity.  The working group mailing list will remain open, and I
expect that the documents currently in pipeline (such as webdav-search) which
have been informally last-called here will go forward as individual submissions.
Until Lisa has returned from maternity leave, those will go through Chris Newman,
who will succeed me at the end of the Prague meeting. 
	I want to highlight that I personally and the IESG generally continues
to believe in the value of the work on WebDAV.  Publishing this document and
closing this incarnation of the working group are not actions intended to cut off
further work.  They are efforts to make sure we capture the work that has been
done and to ensure that future work is not burdened with the baggage of a working
group whose deliverables have stretched out long past any deadline set.
	My thanks to everyone for all the hard work put in on this and for
the willingness to put the end goals ahead of individual preferences for one
form or another.  I look forward to seeing some of you in Prague and in Chicago
as the IETF considers a 2616bis WG.
	Congratulations on the achievement of this milestone and, please,
accept my regards,

					Ted Hardie

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:35:37 +0100

Hi Ted,

thanks for the information.

It's a pity that RFC2518bis as of draft 18 isn't better -- lots of 
issues have been raised before and during the Last Calls, and only some 
of them have been fixed, although proposed resolutions for many of them 
were available.

In particular, it's kind of embarrassing that the WG has a second 
document in the pipeline (draft-ietf-webdav-bind-17) which already has 
to fix a bug in RFC2518bis - a bug that has been reported over half a 
year ago (see 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-17.html#rfc.section.A>).

That being said I *do* agree with the decision to close the working 
group, as the previous years have clearly shown that the WG's 
productivity wasn't as good as it should have been.

Looking forward to submitting SEARCH and BIND, and then to go on working 
on RFC2518bisbis, RFC3253bis and RFC3744bis as private submissions.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: robert burrell donkin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:55:20 +0000

On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 20:35 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:

<snip>

> on RFC2518bisbis, RFC3253bis and RFC3744bis as private submissions.

about nine months ago, i posted about using email over web dav as an
IMAP replacement
(http://www.nabble.com/email-over-webDAV-as-IMAP-replacement--tf1897019.html#a5208546).
  i received helpful and friendly replies. 

i'm still interested in this area (and have found that there are other
people also interested in this problem). i had hoped to come back to
this group with questions once i had an experimental client and server
coded. (realistically, this would be a few months off.)

in light of the pending closure of this working group, does anyone have
updated advice for me?

- robert

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:18:34 -0500

Hi robert,

--On March 10, 2007 9:55:20 PM +0000 robert burrell donkin 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> (http://www.nabble.com/email-over-webDAV-as-IMAP-replacement--tf1897019.h
> tml#a5208546).   i received helpful and friendly replies.
>

Continue discussion on this list. The mailing list will not go away even 
though the IETF working group has closed now. You can work on this effort 
as an individual submission to the IETF (i.e. one not done under the 
auspices of a working group).

PS I would be interested in helping out in such an effort, having spent a 
long time in the IMAP world, and more lately in the WebDAV world with 
CalDAV and CardDAV. However, don't call it an IMAP "replacement" - just as 
IMAP is not a replacement for POP, this would not be a replacement for IMAP 
which has been around for a long time and is fairly well entrenched in a 
number of areas. Better would be to describe it as an "alternative" to IMAP 
and POP. Just as many sites today run POP and IMAP services together, 
chances are a WebDAV-email service will be run along side the others too - 
assuming it provides some benefits for those that want it.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: "Konstantin Breu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:19:47 +0100

Did you have a look at the WebDAV interface of MS Exchange Server?

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa579087.aspx

It is used by OWA (Outlook WebAccess).

Cheers,
Konstantin

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Im
Auftrag von robert burrell donkin
Gesendet: Samstag, 10. März 2007 22:55
An: [email-masked]
Betreff: redux: email-over-webDAV-as-IMAP-replacement [WAS Re: RFC2518bis]

<snip>

about nine months ago, i posted about using email over web dav as an
IMAP replacement
(http://www.nabble.com/email-over-webDAV-as-IMAP-replacement--tf1897019.html
#a5208546).
  i received helpful and friendly replies. 

- robert

---

From: robert burrell donkin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:43:07 +0000

> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa579087.aspx

definitely not :-)

this arises from an interest in RESTful email protocols supporting rich
meta data 

- robert

---

From: robert burrell donkin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:48:20 +0000

> Hi robert,

hi cyrus

> auspices of a working group).

cool

> CalDAV and CardDAV. 

sounds great :-)

> However, don't call it an IMAP "replacement" - just as 

true

when i posted the original, i was thinking along the lines of
replacement but i've been helping out on an IMAP implementation for some
months now and that's deepened my understanding of the problem area. it
is really an alternative.

- robert