RE: bind draft issues

> I thought we had agreement that GULP is the currently best approach of
> explaining the WebDAV locking model. GULP also covers binds 
> (implicitly!)
> and therefore either should be added to RFC2518bis, or be the 
> basis for a
> rewrite:
> 

GULP should not cover bindings.  That's the problem.  It causes a
problem because some RFC2518 servers just don't work that way.  There's
no need to say whether operations apply always to URLs, bindings or
resources in RFC2518, because when you have 1:1 mappings between URLs
and resources it just doesn't matter 95% of the time, and lets
implementations expose their existing repository.

Otherwise, I think there is a lot of useful specification language in
GULP.

Lisa