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

Re: Remaining issues with the bind draft -- process

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 22:58:19 -0400
To: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <OF9DC761A1.5A1AA146-ON85256E6E.000B58D0-85256E6E.00104276@us.ibm.com>

Patrik wrote on 04/05/2004 02:55:37 PM:

> Julian wrote:
> 
> > Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> >
> >> In general, the spec needs more info to specify how existing things
> >> work. All the following questions must be answered in the spec, NOT 
> >> just
> >> in email. The spec must be explicit, because different people reading 

> >> a
> >> model description always end up with different ideas how the model 
> >> works
> >> in practice.
> >
> > Here I disagree.
> 
> Remember I asked a question explicitly about interoperability between 
> things developed by just reading the spec...then look at the list 
> below. I don't see the statement "yes, there will be interoperability" 
> matches those statements.
> 
> Can you explain?

The phrase Julian (and I as well, in a separate message) disagreed with
was "All the following questions must be answered in the spec, NOT 
just in email".

In particular, our response was: some questions are answered in email,
some questions become issues, and some issues end up causing changes to
the spec.  If every question on the mailing list required an explicit
addition to the spec, the spec would become completely inaccessible due
to its bulk.

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 22:58:57 GMT

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