Subject: [Fwd: WGLC of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-14.txt]

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:14:59 +0100

Hi,

the IETF WebDAV working group finally has produced a draft for the 
revision of RFC2518 that we feel can be last-called in the working group 
-- see Cullen's announcement below.

At this point it would be great to get feedback from people who 
currently do not follow the WebDAV working group's mailing list, but who 
do have an interest in HTTP, authoring, and related areas.

The last-called draft is at 
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-14.txt>. 
Diffs between individual drafts can be found at 
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis/>. Changes 
to RFC2518 are (hopefully completely) summarized in Appendix E (see 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-14.txt#page-135>).

Discussion takes place on the WebDAV mailing list 
(<mailto:[email-masked]>), which may be joined by sending a 
message with subject "subscribe" to 
<mailto:[email-masked]>. Discussions of the WebDAV working 
group are archived at <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/>.

There's also a bug tracker at <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/>, 
which may be useful to find out whether a particular issue already has 
been raised. For new issues, please report them to the mailing list 
first, though.

(I am sending this announcement to various mailing lists, so you may get 
multiple copies. Apologies.)

Best regards, Julian

-------- Original Message --------
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:42:18 -0800
From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
To: WebDav <[email-masked]>

I am absolutely thrilled to be able to Working Group Last Call (WGLC)
draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis. The WGLC will end on March 15, 2006.

I am aware of one complex open issue with this version of the draft. The 
use of ETAGs in the response to a HTTP PUT is not exactly clear in the 
HTTP spec and this has implications for WebDAV. Some folks are working 
on a draft to clarify this in HTTP. I'm sure this issue will be 
discussed during the Last Call.

On minor issues, Julian will be proposing new text for bug 143.

The "if header" section needs particularly careful review.

I would like to ask everyone to read this. We really need to get some 
fresh eyes reading this document. Did we get it right? Is there enough 
detail that you can implement it? Does this clarify previous 
interoperable problems?

Thank you,
Cullen

I'd like to take this moment to thank the several contributors that put 
in a ton of work to make this happen and to all the folks on the mailing 
list that put up with the roughly two thousand email posts from 
bugzilla. I really hope the volume of these will be reducing.