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

On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 12:13  PM, Clemm, Geoff wrote:
> The only argument for not doing so is that being more
> specific probably requires including the entire GULP
> document, since that is needed to clearly define the difference
> between locking a resource and protecting a URL.
> But I don't think we want to include that information by
> copy in each protocol extension document, so I think it
> is more appropriate to get it into 2518bis, and refer to
> it from the other documents.
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff

Geoff,

As GULP frequently defines things in terms of bindings,
the text as-is seems more appropriate to the binding
spec.

-brian
briank@xythos.com

Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 20:33:56 UTC