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

Re: Depth header in a lock refreshing method

From: Jason Crawford <nn683849@smallcue.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 21:45:24 -0500
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Cc:
Message-ID: <OF636B4043.D6DBCA35-ON85256E11.000E7967-85256E11.000F2158@us.ibm.com>

On Thursday, 01/01/2004 at 10:01 EST, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> I agree with Julian that option 4 is probably best. 

I also agree 

Lisa, do you need this to go on the issues list?

J.

Received on Saturday, 3 January 2004 21:52:55 GMT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Stefan Eissing: "Re: Bindings and GULP again"
Previous message: Julian Reschke: "Re: BIND vs RFC3253"
Maybe in reply to: Geoffrey M Clemm: "Re: Depth header in a lock refreshing method"
Next in thread: Lisa Dusseault: "RE: Depth header in a lock refreshing method"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

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