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

Re: BIND vs RFC3253

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:47:03 -0500
To: webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF4138ABA6.4701EC58-ON85256E0C.007FE671-85256E0D.00512EF2@us.ibm.com>

If "updates" is our only choice for getting in a forward reference,
that's certainly better than nothing.

So I'm fine with having the bind spec indicate that it updates both
RFC2518 and RFC3253.

Cheers,
Geoff


Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com> wrote on 12/30/2003 02:52:43 PM:

> In general, I don't see much of a problem with indicating that a spec
> like this "updates" a previous document even if the document doesn't
> change specific items in the previous document.  Speaking personally,
> when I see "updates", I take it as "read both".  The contrast is, 
obviously,
> with "supersedes" which implies one can/should read only the second
> document. 
> 
> Just my take on it,
>          regards,
>             Ted Hardie
> 
> 
> At 7:54 PM +0100 12/30/2003, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> >
> >>I agree that some reference to RFC3253 would be useful (e.g. something
> >>like "this provides a detailed description of the binding model that
> >>is implicit in RFC3253"), but I wouldn't say that it "updates" 
RFC3253,
> >>since it doesn't change anything in RFC3253.
> >
> >Well, "updates" is the only type of link we *can* use (nothing else
> would create a forward reference in the RFC Index).
> >
> >Besides, I'd say that it in fact "updates" RFC3253, because it 
> updates RFC2518's descriptions for MOVE, COPY, DELETE etc in 
> presence of multiple bindings. Thus, it indeed updates both RFC2518 
> and RFC3253.
> >
> >Regards, Julian
> >
> >
> >--
> ><green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> 
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2003 09:47:08 GMT

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