RE: 14.4_CLARIFY_VH_DELETE_2, was: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253

   From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de]

   > From: Clemm, Geoff
   > ....  I'm guessing most folks are not especially concerned
   > because they are not planning on implementing multiple bindings
   > to either version histories or versions (but for the same reason,
   > would have no problem if this is made explicit).

   How can you not implement multiple bindings, if they appear as port
   of working collections?

You would only implement multiple bindings if you are supporting the
advanced client workspace package (i.e. supporting both working
resources and version-controlled collections).

   Anyway, I think this should be marked as resolved (the spec should state
   that all version and VHR URIs that are reported in live properties must
be
   the stable URIs).

Done.

   I'll answer the "other" issue in a separate mail (which will take time).

For now, I'll mark the other issue closed as well, but will be happy
to reopen it if Julian can muster at least one other working group member
who is unhappy with the current resolution.

Cheers,
Geoff