Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) Redirect Reference Resources
draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-13

The PROTO write follows:

  1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
        Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready
        to forward to the IESG for publication?
Yes

  1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
        and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the
        depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?


We can barely find anyone to review it but the document has had review and
discussion in the WG. The active participants in the WG is currently very
small and thought only handful people made comments during WGLC, it is
probably not possible to get wider review at this point.

  1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
        particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
        complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?


There are some people that want to be able to solve this problem. There are
multiple ways that it could be solved with, I have received email about at
least three that are in use. Some people feel the approach proposed in this
draft is too complex and do not plan to use it. Some people feel the
functionality in the redirect draft is not enough. Specifically they feel
that it does not address authoring of tree-mappings or pattern matching.
There are an extremely limited number of implementations or groups that
intend to implement this draft - possibly only one really independent group.


  1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that
        you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For
        example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
        document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for
        it.  In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG
        and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the
        document, detail those concerns in the write-up.

I believe this document should have text added to the Abstract that is along
the lines of the Technical Summary provided later in this email. The text
should clearly point out there are problems this does not solve and that
this should not stop work or deployments of other solutions that solve the
same problem as this specification.

  1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
        agree with it?

There is consensus for an Experimental status but there is not consensus for
a Proposed Standard because multiple people feel this may not be the best
way to solve the problem.

  1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent?  If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
        separate email to the Responsible Area Director.

Not that I (the chair) am aware of.

  1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the
        ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
Yes

  1.h) Is the document split into normative and informative references?

They are all normative

        Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not
        also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
No

  1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
        announcement includes a write-up section with the following
        sections:

        *    Technical Summary


This specification defines an extension to Web Distributed Authoring and
Versioning (WebDAV) to allow clients to author HTTP redirect reference
resources whose default response is an HTTP/1.1 3xx (Redirection) status
code. A redirect reference makes it possible to access the target resource
indirectly through any URI mapped to the redirect reference resource. This
specification does not address remapping of trees of resources or regular
expression based redirections. Other mechanisms can also be used to achieve
the same  functionality as this specification. This specification allows
operators to experiment with this mechanism and develop experience on what
is the best approaches to the problem.

        *    Working Group Summary

The WebDav Working Group came to consensus on this document.

        *    Protocol Quality

This specification is Experimental so that we can develop experience on the
quality of this protocol.