I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-10.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the WWW Distributed Authoring and Versioning Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Binding Extensions to Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)
	Author(s)	: G. Clemm, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-webdav-bind-10.txt
	Pages		: 42
	Date		: 2005-1-5
	
This specification defines bindings, and the BIND method for creating 
multiple bindings to the same resource.  Creating a new binding to a 
resource causes at least one new URI to be mapped to that resource.  
Servers are required to insure the integrity of any bindings that they 
allow to be created.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-10.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request <at> ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-webdav-bind-10.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 

WG Last call for BIND

This e-mail serves as the Working Group Last Call for BIND:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-10.txt

Here is the process we are going to use:
- Issues entered into the issue tracker: 
http://ietf.webdav.org:8080/bugzilla/
- Discuss issues on the list by replying to the issue e-mail
- If you believe you have the resolution of the issue, attach it as a 
comment on the tracker
- If you agree with the issue, vote for it on the tracker
- The issue opener may close the issue, if the vote count is still 0
- If the vote count is >0, only a working group chair or person 
designated by the chair may close the issue
- Issues will be closed when consensus is achieved on the issue being 
resolved
- Once an issue is closed according to this process, it may not be 
reopened
- If you still have outstanding issues that were closed, that you 
believe are still an issue, reopen the issue, and we will use these 
rules to close them
- Issues that have 0 votes at the end of last call will be closed 
automatically

The vote count is not a 'majority wins' sort of vote, but hopefully 
will allow some of those who want to register concern to be able to do 
so in a relatively low-effort way.

Last call will go on for three weeks, ending at 12 noon GMT February 2, 
2005.

Re: WG Last call for BIND

Joe Hildebrand wrote:

> This e-mail serves as the Working Group Last Call for BIND:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-10.txt

Thanks.

Procedural questions...:

> Here is the process we are going to use:
> - Issues entered into the issue tracker: 
> http://ietf.webdav.org:8080/bugzilla/
> - Discuss issues on the list by replying to the issue e-mail
> - If you believe you have the resolution of the issue, attach it as a 
> comment on the tracker
> - If you agree with the issue, vote for it on the tracker

If I disagree, then....?

> - The issue opener may close the issue, if the vote count is still 0
> - If the vote count is >0, only a working group chair or person 
> designated by the chair may close the issue
> - Issues will be closed when consensus is achieved on the issue being 
> resolved

Shouldn't that be "rough consensus"? As far as I can tell, I expect that 
there'll be issues for which we definitively won't reach consensus, 
judging from past discussions.

Re: WG Last call for BIND

I share Julian's concern that the lack of a "vote against" feature makes the bugzilla voting mechanism not very useful/appropriate for specifications issues.  The policy of limiting the number of votes (currently set to just 1) further limits the utility of this mechanism (and encourages bundling all of ones issues into a single "report" so that you can vote for all of them without spending multiple votes).

I also share his puzzlement over the "you can't reopen an issue unless you want to" rule (.

A key point is how one determines rough consensus (since the voting mechanism doesn't help with that).  Any thoughts on how that would be determined?

Cheers,
Geoff


Julian wrote on 01/11/2005 08:02:38 PM:
>
> Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>
> > This e-mail serves as the Working Group Last Call for BIND:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-10.txt
>
> Thanks.
>
> Procedural questions...:
>
> > Here is the process we are going to use:
> > - Issues entered into the issue tracker:
> > http://ietf.webdav.org:8080/bugzilla/
> > - Discuss issues on the list by replying to the issue e-mail
> > - If you believe you have the resolution of the issue, attach it as a
> > comment on the tracker
> > - If you agree with the issue, vote for it on the tracker
>
> If I disagree, then....?
>
> > - The issue opener may close the issue, if the vote count is still 0
> > - If the vote count is >0, only a working group chair or person
> > designated by the chair may close the issue
> > - Issues will be closed when consensus is achieved on the issue being
> > resolved
>
> Shouldn't that be "rough consensus"? As far as I can tell, I expect that
> there'll be issues for which we definitively won't reach consensus,
> judging from past discussions.
>
> > - Once an issue is closed according to this process, it may not be reopened
> > - If you still have outstanding issues that were closed, that you
> > believe are still an issue, reopen the issue, and we will use these
> > rules to close them
>
> Nit: that seems to say that an issue may not be re-opened unless
> somebody feels it needs to
>
> > - Issues that have 0 votes at the end of last call will be closed
> > automatically
>
> Are votes from the issue opener counted?
>
> > The vote count is not a 'majority wins' sort of vote, but hopefully will
> > allow some of those who want to register concern to be able to do so in
> > a relatively low-effort way.
>
> As there doesn't seem to be a way to vote against an issue, this doesn't
> seem to work.
>
> > Last call will go on for three weeks, ending at 12 noon GMT February 2,
> > 2005.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>

Re: WG Last call for BIND

>> - If you agree with the issue, vote for it on the tracker
>
> If I disagree, then....?

You voice your disagreement on the list.  It's not an actual vote, it's 
a way to find out if certain issues are just outliers.  My 
understanding of some of the disagreements that have happened in the 
past is that people have had issues, other people have agreed with them 
but not said anything.  I'd say that by definition, an issue that only 
has a single supporter shouldn't hinder rough consensus.  This is 
actually an attempt to weed out those issues more easily.

>> - The issue opener may close the issue, if the vote count is still 0
>> - If the vote count is >0, only a working group chair or person 
>> designated by the chair may close the issue
>> - Issues will be closed when consensus is achieved on the issue being 
>> resolved
>
> Shouldn't that be "rough consensus"? As far as I can tell, I expect 
> that there'll be issues for which we definitively won't reach 
> consensus, judging from past discussions.

Sorry, I was slightly unclear.  "consensus is achieved" should have 
read something like "when the chairs decide that rough consensus has 
been reached".

>
>> - Once an issue is closed according to this process, it may not be 
>> reopened
>> - If you still have outstanding issues that were closed, that you 
>> believe are still an issue, reopen the issue, and we will use these 
>> rules to close them
>
> Nit: that seems to say that an issue may not be re-opened unless 
> somebody feels it needs to 

We didn't have process for closing issues until now.  Some of them may 
have been closed without the opener feeling their issue got full 
treatment.  My intent was that only issues that have been closed prior 
to this last call could be re-opened.

>
>> - Issues that have 0 votes at the end of last call will be closed 
>> automatically
>
> Are votes from the issue opener counted?

As the 0th vote.  :)

>> The vote count is not a 'majority wins' sort of vote, but hopefully 
>> will allow some of those who want to register concern to be able to 
>> do so in a relatively low-effort way.
>
> As there doesn't seem to be a way to vote against an issue, this 
> doesn't seem to work.

The word "vote" is perhaps confusing.  It's just a way of registering 
the fact that an issue is important to more than one person.

Re: WG Last call for BIND

> I share Julian's concern that the lack of a "vote against" feature 
> makes the bugzilla voting mechanism not very useful/appropriate for 
> specifications issues.  The policy of limiting the number of votes 
> (currently set to just 1) further limits the utility of this mechanism 
> (and encourages bundling all of ones issues into a single "report" so 
> that you can vote for all of them without spending multiple votes).

Sorry about that.  I've set the max votes to 100.

> I also share his puzzlement over the "you can't reopen an issue unless 
> you want to" rule (.

Hopefully I clarified that in my response to him.

> A key point is how one determines rough consensus (since the voting 
> mechanism doesn't help with that).  Any thoughts on how that would be 
> determined?

Chair omniscience.  :)

Seriously, if there are multiple camps that can't come together, we'll 
have to keep working.

I'll suggest again that those who want these drafts to continue to make 
forward progress would benefit from coming to an IETF meeting and doing 
some good old-fashioned politics.  Meet people.  Make friends.  Explain 
your point of view.  Relationships, trust, and respect can drive a 
group towards consensus.

http://ietf.org/meetings/IETF-62.html

Re: WG Last call for BIND

Joe Hildebrand wrote:
 > ...
> I'll suggest again that those who want these drafts to continue to make 
> forward progress would benefit from coming to an IETF meeting and doing 
> some good old-fashioned politics.  Meet people.  Make friends.  Explain 
> your point of view.  Relationships, trust, and respect can drive a group 
> towards consensus.
> ...

I find this comment puzzling. BIND has passed already one WG last call a 
few years ago, has been on the WG's agenda almost since day one (as part 
of "advanced collections"), and has been the top priority in the WebDAV 
WG's charter for quite some time. Does it really need additional 
political lobbying at this point?

After all, there is no requirement whatsoever that WGs indeed meet at 
each IETF (or at all, for that matter). If the WG chairs want to promote 
a meeting, it would be helpful if there'd be some more advance planning 
than in the past, so that people would have some idea about what the 
goals are (just re-stating the status quo isn't that helpful).

As far as I can tell, the current contents of BIND indeed represents 
rough consensus (in the semantics the WG wanted to achieve) *and* 
running code (interoperable code being *deployed*, not only in 
development), so it's really really time that it get's out of ID state 
(even if this means publishing as "Experimental" if that is needed to 
overcome the opposition of a few who, for reasons unclear to me, seem to 
prefer blocking the progress).

Best regards, Julian

--

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Re: WG Last call for BIND

I'm happy with all of Joe's answers, so I'm +1 for the process
(in the spirit of getting rough consensus on the process for
determining rough consensus .

BTW, I encourage folks to review the outstanding issues against
2518bis, and vote for the ones you care about.

Cheers,
Geoff


Joe wrote on 01/12/2005 01:37:13 AM:
>
> > I share Julian's concern that the lack of a "vote against" feature
> > makes the bugzilla voting mechanism not very useful/appropriate for
> > specifications issues.  The policy of limiting the number of votes
> > (currently set to just 1) further limits the utility of this mechanism
> > (and encourages bundling all of ones issues into a single "report" so
> > that you can vote for all of them without spending multiple votes).
>
> Sorry about that.  I've set the max votes to 100.
>
> > I also share his puzzlement over the "you can't reopen an issue unless
> > you want to" rule (.
>
> Hopefully I clarified that in my response to him.
>
> > A key point is how one determines rough consensus (since the voting
> > mechanism doesn't help with that).  Any thoughts on how that would be
> > determined?
>
> Chair omniscience.  :)
>
> Seriously, if there are multiple camps that can't come together, we'll
> have to keep working.
>
> I'll suggest again that those who want these drafts to continue to make
> forward progress would benefit from coming to an IETF meeting and doing
> some good old-fashioned politics.  Meet people.  Make friends.  Explain
> your point of view.  Relationships, trust, and respect can drive a
> group towards consensus.
>
> http://ietf.org/meetings/IETF-62.html
>
>

Re: WG Last call for BIND

Re: WG Last call for BIND

This is a good example of how, if you knew me a little better, our 
communication could be improved.  This was off the topic of BIND in 
specific, on to how to achieve consensus in general.

BIND should be fine.  2518bis may yet need some discussion, as may 
other topics.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand
Denver, CO, USA

On Jan 12, 2005, at 1:42 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> > ...
>> I'll suggest again that those who want these drafts to continue to 
>> make forward progress would benefit from coming to an IETF meeting 
>> and doing some good old-fashioned politics.  Meet people.  Make 
>> friends.  Explain your point of view.  Relationships, trust, and 
>> respect can drive a group towards consensus.
>> ...
>
> I find this comment puzzling. BIND has passed already one WG last call 
> a few years ago, has been on the WG's agenda almost since day one (as 
> part of "advanced collections"), and has been the top priority in the 
> WebDAV WG's charter for quite some time. Does it really need 
> additional political lobbying at this point?
>
> After all, there is no requirement whatsoever that WGs indeed meet at 
> each IETF (or at all, for that matter). If the WG chairs want to 
> promote a meeting, it would be helpful if there'd be some more advance 
> planning than in the past, so that people would have some idea about 
> what the goals are (just re-stating the status quo isn't that 
> helpful).
>
> As far as I can tell, the current contents of BIND indeed represents 
> rough consensus (in the semantics the WG wanted to achieve) *and* 
> running code (interoperable code being *deployed*, not only in 
> development), so it's really really time that it get's out of ID state 
> (even if this means publishing as "Experimental" if that is needed to 
> overcome the opposition of a few who, for reasons unclear to me, seem 
> to prefer blocking the progress).
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>