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

Status of RFC2518Bis (Was Re: Remaining issues with the bind draft -- process)

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 12:13:46 -0700
Message-Id: <87197BB2-87FE-11D8-970E-000A95B2BB72@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>


What's been holding up RFC2518bis is lack of clear consensus -- or a  
reliable way of determining it -- on several issues.  When we're ready,  
we can reintroduce discussion on those issues and see if now there is a  
clear consensus or a way to determine one.

The most high-level issue is whether RFC2518bis is intended to be a  
proposed standard or a draft standard.  I believe this issue is implied  
by the proposal to remove locking from RFC2518 -- a change that big,  
even though it's a feature removal, may require recycling at proposed  
standard.

Lisa

On Apr 6, 2004, at 8:16 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Jason Crawford wrote:
>> A new LOCKING document?  I'm not sure.  Admittedly LOCK'ing has been  
>> a problem for a long time.   Tossing out lock-null resources was a  
>> big help.   Is locking holding up 2518bis?  Does creating a new  
>> document help?   Let's hear the pros and cons of having a separate  
>> document for locking?
>
> We talked about that in January  
> (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JanMar/ 
> 0030.html>).
>
> Primarily, it reduces the complexity of RFC2518bis, and allows us to  
> both clarify and enhance locking without getting problems with  
> RFC2518bis advancing in the standards ladder.
>
> And yes, what's holding up 2518bis? The last draft was posted almost  
> six months ago, to which I replied with a long list of issues. There  
> was almost no feedback.
>
> Regards, Julian
>
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2004 15:14:12 GMT

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