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: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:32:27 +0100
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCOEIBGKAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

I explicitly support GULP being added RFC2518.

In particular, I ask everybody to either state

- if  they find GULP technically incorrect (so that we can fix it) or

- otherwise explain why it can't be added to RFC2518bis as is.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 3:25 AM
> To: WebDAV
> Subject: RE: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)
> 
> 
> 
> GULP is actually pretty short, so I probably wouldn't mind
> adding a copy to the binding protocol *if* we get consensus
> that GULP correctly defines the WebDAV locking semantics.
> What I don't want to have happen is for the binding protocol
> to become a draft standard and then have RFC-2518bis decide
> that some GULP variant is needed, and have the binding RFC
> conflict with 2518bis RFC (with the resulting interoperability
> problems inevitably appearing).
> 
> So I'll take this opportunity to again ask everyone to either
> explicitly support the current GULP proposal, or identify any
> problems in semantics or terminology, so we can get this 
> language committed to 2518bis ASAP.
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Korver [mailto:briank@xythos.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 8:31 PM
> To: WebDAV
> Subject: Re: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 01:50  PM, Clemm, Geoff wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't want to tug any harder on that particular string (i.e.
> > defining precisely what "protect" means), or else we'd end up needing
> > to include most of the GULP (Grand Unified Locking Proposal) in the
> > binding draft.
> 
> Given that I think that the binding draft needs to be more
> explicit about the behavior of locks, what would be so awful
> about including some of GULP?
> 
> 
> > Since we currently only have definitions of the semantics of write
> > locks, I try to avoid speculating on what semantics non-write locks
> > may have some day.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Geoff
> 
> -brian
> briank@xythos.com
> 
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 03:32:38 GMT

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