W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 1997

Re: Open Requirements Issues

From: Einar Stefferud <stef=webdav@nma.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:09:05 -0700
To: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <20441.866754545@nma.com>
Given your WG position on "other than HTTP", I find that my interst in
the WG has dimisinshed to the point of not paying attention any
longer, as it is clear that you do not want to be concerned with
anything other than HTTP.

So, I am going away to help you achieve consensus by asddig a loud bit
of silance.  But, remember that "I told you so", as I will not be the
one to remind you when you wake up to the hard reality of not being
able to interwork via EMail, or anything other than HTTP.

Just one note at this point.  The obvious solution to future
enablement of EMail support for WEBDAV (not WEBDAV support for EMail)
is to focus on plaicing all you PDUs inside MIME envelopes.  With that
done, transoprt no longer remains a key issue for WEBDAV.

However, since you are all so fully focused on HTTP TRANSPORT to the
exclusion of any alternative transports, I have nothing more to
contribute, and I will stand aside and make no further comment.


From your message Thu, 5 Jun 1997 17:48:36 -0700:
}I'd like to start a dialog on the last remaining open issues in the
}requirements document, since I feel that for most issues, a little bit of
}discussion will resolve the issue.
}The requirements document lists the following issues as still being under
}*       Whether support for multi-resource locking is needed
}*       Whether reservations should be treated as shared or advisory locks
}*       What requirements there should be for access control
}*       What requirements there should be for internationalization
}*       How far WebDAV should be concerned about compatibility with other
}transport protocols besides HTTP
}My views on these issues are as follows:
}*       How far WebDAV should be concerned about compatibility with other
}transport protocols besides HTTP
}Well, since our charter limits us to discussion on HTTP and Email as
}transport protocols, this open issue really concerns email access.  The
}sense I have been receiving from the list is the current, "don't shoot,
}don't spec." (don't shoot ourselves in the foot by making it impossible to
}do an email mapping in the future, but don't actually write a spec. for
}this right now) is how most would prefer to proceed.
}If my reading of the sense of the working group is correct, then we should
}not have a requirement on this topic, and can declare the issue closed.  If
}there is strong support for writing a spec. on email access, then Gregory
}Woodhouse, who has volunteered to look into this, needs to write up some
}requirements, which may or may not end up in future versions of
}- Jim
Received on Thursday, 19 June 1997 17:25:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:15 UTC