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

Re: ID: draft-ietf-webdav-bind-05

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:11:54 -0400
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF2279D0B8.93126218-ON85256EBC.003C2509-85256EBC.003D8BA1@us.ibm.com>
Julian wrote on 06/23/2004 03:51:33 AM:

> Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> > Meta:
> >  - Who is maintaining the webdav.org site for specs?  The latest draft 

> > for bind there is -02.

That would be me ... it should be up-to-date now (with the latest 
information
from Julian's site).  In particular, I've linked the issues list directly
to Julian's issues list, since he's maintaining that document.  Also, I've
made a copy of Julian's "latest" and made it version 05.1.

> > 1.3
> >  - Second paragraph: how might I otherwise negotiate?  The DAV:bind 
header?
> 
> Good point. As far as I can tell, this text was inherited from RFC3253 
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3253.html#rfc.section.1.6>). 
> Geoff, do you remember what this is supposed to mean? Can/should we 
> clarify that?

This is just a placeholder for our deciding to marshal things differently.
In particular, suppose we had a request header that specified "return 
error
information in html format" (that was contemplated at one time).  Then the
error info would be marshalled as html in the response body, rather than 
in the xml format that is used by default.



> > 7.1.1
> >  - I think this would be clearer if it included D:resource-id in the 
> > request and response, so you could tell where the loop happened.  Are 
> > resource-id's likely to be costly to return?
> 
> No, they should be cheap. I think we should update the example 
accordingly.

I agree.


> > Sorry some of these are nit-picky.
> 
> No reason to. As a matter of fact, this kind of review is what we need. 

Definitely.  Since we are (or should be) at last call, now's the time
to nit-pick.

> Let's try to get things moving so that we can get back on track (BIND 
> was supposed to be last-called in May according to the just updated 
> working group charter).

Yes!

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 07:13:25 GMT

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