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: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:15:57 +0100
Message-ID: <3FCCE4ED.3090403@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

>>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.
> I don't have a problem with GULP.  What I'm trying to do is make sure it
> fits into the WebDAV specification.  Sure, we could bung it in randomly,
> any section remotely related to locking.  Instead, however, I tried to

OTOH, we could put it into section 6, and then try to remove any 
language that's not needed anymore. Note that I'm not against keeping 
examples and extended usage discussions, it should be just clear that 
the few paragraphs of GULP are actually all that's required to fully 
specify the locking semantics. Having that in one single place instead 
of spreading it over different sections (Locking intro, LOCK method, If 
header) IMHO makes things a lot easier to understand.

>  - keep to the structure of the spec 
>  - have the spec be linguistically consistent with GULP
>  - have the spec be logically consistent with GULP
> I'd still like to hear how this could be better, for example whether any
> subtlety was lost in the way GULP was incorporated.

Well, it seems. We have this discussion because you pointed out that 
BIND spec neglects to specify locking behaviour. If RFC2518bis indeed 
already says the same thing as GULP, there shouldn't be an issue 
(because it's supposed to fully explain how locking works when there are 
multiple URIs for the same resource).

> But if you think this is irrelevant and you want to call a vote, Jim can 
> determine consensus.  Please indicate where you would like me to put GULP
> into RFC2518bis.

I'm happy to make a more detailed proposal, but I'd prefer to make a 
base decision first. Jim?


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 14:16:04 UTC

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