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

Re: Bind issues

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:31:06 +0100
Message-ID: <3FCBA50A.6020801@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> Hi Julian,  many of us just got back from a 4-day weekend due
> to American Thanksgiving.  I haven't had time to reread the bind
> draft yet as you suggested.


>>- one will be closed by updating GULP
>>to clarify when a lock token counts as "submitted".
> I don't think that adding any text to RFC2518bis will fix the problem in the
> bind draft.  It's not clear RFC2518bis will finish soon, or if it does, 
> what status it will have, or how bindings will depend on it.  Unless the
> bindings draft waits on RFC2518bis to finish, it needs to stand on its
> own in this respect.

Well, I think I can agree with this. However we need to ensure that BIND 
and RFC2518bis actually say the same thing. So I'm in favor of adding 
GULP to the BIND spec *if and only if* there's a clearly expressed 
working group consensus on that this indeed is what RFC2518bis should 
say as well. Ideally, in identical words.

> (As I've already said, I think all the language from GULP *is* in 
> RFC2518bis.  I may have missed something and I'm happy to have it pointed
> out, but due to the dependency issue, whether or not that's complete or
> agreed upon may not be relevant to bindings status)

Well, GULP is the result of many mailing list members trying to come up 
with the best possible explanation of how locks work in WebDAV 
(completely independantly of the BIND spec, by the way). It's not only 
about what is says, but also how it does that. Therefore, I think this 
should be *the* normative statement, and that it belongs into the base 
spec. Let's just vote on it, I don't think that any further discussion 
about this will reveal any new arguments.


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 1 December 2003 15:33:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:28 UTC