I think GULP should, with the proposed changes, go into RFC2518 bis. LOCKing semantics need to be defined in 2518bis and not in any side-track specification (sorry Goeff ;). //Stefan Am Freitag, 07.03.03, um 15:23 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Julian Reschke: > > Hi. > > I'd really like to see some progress regarding this issue. In > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0281.html > > I have tried to rephrase GULP so that it doesn't require the term > "binding" > anymore. This should address the concerns of those who fear that a > dependency on the BIND spec is introduced. > > To those who did object to GULP being part of RFC2518bis *please* > review > this? > > Julian > > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 >Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 11:23:06 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:03 GMT