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

RE: Bind issues

From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 23:01:17 -0500
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF63551779.ADED72CF-ON85256DF6.0013FF1B-85256DF6.001618F6@us.ibm.com>
On Tuesday, 12/02/2003 at 05:35 EST, Jason Crawford wrote:
> On Monday, 12/01/2003 at 01:30 PST, "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com> 
wrote:
> > 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
> > 
> > - 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.
> > 
> > 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. 
> 
> An appendix? 

Sorry that I wasn't clear.  I was suggesting that perhaps putting GULP in 
an appendix would satisfy Lisa's concerns about making sure it fits in the 
spec.

But I'm not sure that even that addresses the concern about 2518bis being 
slow to press and us not wanting to wait for 2518bis before we can 
reference that text. 

Perhaps another option is to create a separate rfc for GULP.   I assume it 
could be published faster that 2518bis and it could be referenced by 
multiple related documents without suggesting that it bears a special 
relationship with binding support.

J.
 
Received on Sunday, 7 December 2003 23:01:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT