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

RE: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 23:14:35 +0100
To: "Brian Korver" <briank@xythos.com>, "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCEEDKGKAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Brian Korver
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 7:57 PM
> To: WebDAV
> Subject: Re: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)
> On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 06:27  AM, Clemm, Geoff wrote:
> >    Bindings and Locks
> >
> >    The relationship between bindings and locks is missing
> >    from the draft.  I think the behavior of locks and the
> >    lock methods should be fully specified in this draft.
> >
> > RFC2518bis is in the process of finalizing the behavior of
> > locks, and we do not want the bind draft to say anything that
> > conflicts with this.  Instead, we will make sure that the
> > locking model in RFC2518bis clearly defines locking behavior
> > in the presence of multiple bindings.
> It probably isn't a good idea to introduce a dependency
> such as this, especially since 2518bis doesn't have any
> notion of bindings.  I don't believe that the binding
> document can move forward.

Of course does RFC2518 have a notion of bindings. What it doesn't have is a
method to *create* multiple bindings, and the live properties to inspect

Bindings always have been there implicitly. All the BIND spec adds is the
machinery to create them, and to discover some more information about them.


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 3 March 2003 17:15:20 GMT

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