Subject: PaceChangeProtocolCharter

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:32:35 -0500

http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceChangeProtocolCharter

Abstract
------------------------------------------
Require upwards-compatibility with WebDAV.

Status
------------------------------------------
Open

Author
------------------------------------------
Robert Sayre

Rationale
------------------------------------------
The Publishing Protocol overlaps with WebDAV in several areas. By 
ensuring that the protocol is compatible with WebDAV, we can reduce the 
surface area of the spec, decrease the need to reinvent WebDAV 
functionality in the future, and perhaps even punt on complex problems 
(e.g. renaming images, ACLs) in favor of WebDAV.

Proposal
------------------------------------------
Adjust the charter as follows:

The editing protocol must enable:
  * creating, editing, and deleting feed entries
  * upward-compatibility with WebDAV
  * multiple authors for a feed
  * multiple subjects or categories in a feed
  * user authentication
  * adding, editing, and deleting users
  * setting and getting user preferences
  * creating, getting and setting related resources such as
    comments, templates, etc.

Impacts
------------------------------------------
Despite appearances, it would not change current implementations a whole 
lot.

Notes
------------------------------------------
One thing this *does not* rule out is the current approach using feed 
listings and prev/next. WebDAV does not define responses to GET on a 
collection, so that approach would be acceptable.

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:26:40 -0500

John Panzer wrote:
> I realize it's late for new Paces.  

It is not late for protocol Paces.

> 
> [1] In fact my original PaceSimpleResourcePosting had verbiage 
> discussing WebDAV compatibility, which was stripped out during the 
> editing process as "irrelevant" when it was incorporated into the draft. 
>   I understood at the time that it was irrelevant because WebDAV 
> compatibility was assumed; was I wrong?

IIRC, the WebDAV text was stripped as part of the chairs' read on 
consensus, so the editors did not include it. I don't the answer to your 
last question.

Robert Sayre

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:58:13 -0500

> Proposal

Please keep in mind that charter revisions MUST be reviewed by the IETF as a
whole and approved by the IESG.  They can not be made unilaterally by the
working group.

Having said that, it is perfectly reasonable for the working group to
consider needed changes, reach consensus on a proposal, and ask the AD to
bring the changes to the IESG for consideration.  It is more common for
re-chartering to take place AFTER a group has produced something, though.

-Scott-

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:20:53 -0500

> whole and approved by the IESG.  They can not be made unilaterally by the

I understand that. It would also be acceptable for us to decide to make 
it compatible, without changing the charter, correct?

Much like we could've guaranteed questions from our A.D. about date 
formats [0], I would also expect our A.D. to ask some questions if we 
reinvent several features already found in WebDAV.

Robert Sayre

[0] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg06611.html

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:31:10 -0500

> I understand that. It would also be acceptable for us to 
> decide to make it compatible, without changing the charter, correct?

As long as that goal doesn't conflict with other chartered work items, yes.

> Much like we could've guaranteed questions from our A.D. 
> about date formats [0], I would also expect our A.D. to ask 
> some questions if we reinvent several features already found 
> in WebDAV.

Why?  WebDAV reuse isn't currently a required part of what this group is
supposed to be doing.  Sure, I might ask questions if it looks like there's
overlap and reuse of existing work might save something, but if it's not a
requirement (and it currently isn't) it won't necessarily be a significant
issue if reasonable alternatives are described instead.

-Scott-

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:09:48 -0500

Scott Hollenbeck wrote:

> overlap and reuse of existing work might save something, 

I just wrote "if we reinvent". If we don't, WebDAV isn't very relevant.

> but if it's not a

I guess this policy is why we have things like XCAP (reasonable... but 
why?). It'll be interesting to see if the protocol can manage its 
current requirements without running afoul of RFC2616, RFC3986, and 
BCP56. It's my opinion that it probably will if it isn't 
WebDAV-compatible, but everyone might decide to look the other way.

Robert Sayre