W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Remaining issues with the bind draft -- process

From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 00:09:03 +0200
Message-Id: <D90CA6B6-874D-11D8-86C0-00039384827E@greenbytes.de>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>, Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>


Am 05.04.2004 um 23:59 schrieb Ted Hardie:

> At 11:20 PM +0200 04/05/2004, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Stefan Eissing wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> So, it is inaccurate and definitely not helping anyone with any 
>>> implementation issue to
>>> request cleanup of LOCKs from the authors of the bind spec. I 
>>> personally am waiting
>>> for 2 years now that RFC 2518bis makes progress comparable to other 
>>> specs of this
>>> group.
>>> ...
>>
>> Another way to look at this is that WebDAV LOCKING needs 
>> clarifications, but it needs them independantly of the BIND spec. It 
>> would be funny if we'd point people to the BIND spec if they have 
>> locking questions, yet do not plan to implement the BIND spec at all.
>>
>
> Speaking personally, my concern here would be that if those 
> clarifications were not
> present, BIND behavior became non-deterministic.  If 2518bis was done, 
> and
> BIND pointed to it to solve that hypothetical problem, all might be 
> goodness; if
> it will not be done, on the other hand, getting the job done in the 
> spec which
> will be completed might be the practical way to go.

But, alas, locks need fixing beyond the scope of the bind spec. As one 
example, RFC
2518 is unclear on the interaction between locks and the IF header. 
This is the
biggest area of non-interoperability. Now, the bind spec cannot clarify 
the general
working of the IF header and fixing the IF header needs also to be done 
for
servers which do not want to support the bind feature.

//Stefan
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 18:09:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:06 GMT