re: RFC 3253, "Extensions to WEBDAV"

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

Joyce,

apologies for not responding to this issue for 2 weeks.

Having looked at the issues list you pointed to, my personal opinion is 
that characterizing this set of issues as "editorial" is somewhat 
stretching the term - for instance, figuring out that use of code 200 in 
one example and 201 in another example is actually a mistake is something 
one could not expect any editing function to catch. There seems to be 
approximately one error that's purely typographical, and about 5 errors 
that *might* have been caught with a validating parser for XML. The rest 
(like "define UNCHECKOUT semantics") simply couldn't have been caught by 
editorial review.

The page seems to indicate that there's active followup of the document, 
and that the followup also includes non-editorial changes.
So I'd say that the reasonable thing to do in this particular situation is 
to simply wait for the community to conclude its next cycle on the document.

(The document is the product of DELTAV, which is closed, but is strongly 
related to WEBDAV, which is an active WG.)

My opinion only.....

                         Harald



--On 15. oktober 2003 10:43 -0700 Joyce Reynolds <jkrey@ISI.EDU> wrote:

> IESG:
>
> The RFC Editor notes with dismay that RFC 3253, "Extensions to WEBDAV",
> has 16 purely typographical errors in its 118 pages.  See:
> http://www.webdav.org/deltav/protocol/rfc3253-issues-list.htm.
>
> We wonder, at what point is it desirable to ask the authors to
> republish an RFC with many editorial fixes?  That should not be a major
> effort, as it should not require more than pro forma approval.
>
> If this happens very often, we are doing something very wrong.  There
> were 5 authors on this document.  We ought to expect better.
>
> Joyce
> (on behalf of RFC Editor)