W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: Re (2): request for un-version-control feature

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 09:34:29 +0100
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCGEEJGKAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>

> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 11:55 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Re (2): request for un-version-control feature
>
>
>
> OK, since there are three folks asking for UN-XXX-CONTROL,
> I'm willing to withdraw my objection since I'm the only one
> objecting.
>
> So now the main question is: should this go in the
> next revision of 3253, or should it be a separate draft?
> (Either one is OK with me).

I think it would be best to collect all "common" extensions to DeltaV into a
separate draft. Once it's stable and depending on the timeline for
RFC3253bis,  we can decide either to move contents into RFC3253bis or to
publish it separately.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 03:34:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:44 GMT