W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: WebDAV WG meeting vs bindings vs GULP

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:20:10 -0500
Message-ID: <E4F2D33B98DF7E4880884B9F0E6FDEE25ED635@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>

I agree with Julian.  The vague and incompletely defined locking
semantics of 2518 desperately needs to be fixed.  I'm happy to work
on improving GULP 5.2, either in wording or semantics (to my knowledge,
no semantic inaccuracies in GULP 5.2 have been reported to the mailing
list).

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 1:28 PM
To: 'Webdav WG'
Subject: WebDAV WG meeting vs bindings vs GULP



Hi,

during the meeting we shortly discussed the bindings spec. As far as I
remember, one of the bigger outstanding issues was the clarification of how
locks work in presence of multiple bindings of a resource (NOTE: a resource
may have multiple bindings even in the absense of a specific BIND method).

I thought the agreement was to update GULP, the "Grand Unified Lock
Proposal" ([1]), and to have that incorporated into RFC2518bis.

However, during the meeting this was questioned, as

1) some think the latest proposal is innacurate and
2) some think an explanation of the model doesn't belong into the spec (it
should just define behaviour).

My take is that if there are inaccuracies in the proposal, we SHOULD resolve
them. Having that done, either GULP itself (or something based on it) should
go into the RFC.

So, those who actually think that 1) or 2) apply, please speak up.

Julian


[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002OctDec/0079.html>

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 14:20:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:02 GMT