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

Re: locking clarifications/extensions vs BIND draft vs RFC2518bis

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:00:17 +0100
Message-ID: <400842D1.2020008@gmx.de>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Jason wrote in an off-list mail:

 > > I'm tempted to just put BIND right into 2518bis -- worst
 > case we recycle at
 > > Proposed, which I don't see as being a major adoption
 > impediment anymore (we
 > > could perhaps call it WebDAV v2, to make it clear that we're making
 > > progress).
 >
 > I assume there are platforms that would have difficulty implementing
 > bindings so I suspect we'd want it to be optional.  I'd think
 > that'd be
 > easier as a separate draft.   But I think it's fine, and in

I can't imagine problems implementing bindings. I *can* imagine problems 
implenting *multiple* bindings to the same resource. That's fine. The 
BIND spec doesn't require servers to actually support multiple bindings, 
it just defines how these must work (and how they can be 
discovered/authored) *if* they are supported.

 > fact advisible,
 > to establish the basic vocabulary of bindings in 2518 and let
 > the bindings
 > draft just cover the optional issues and clarifications for bindings
 > and multiple bindings.

I do agree that RFC2518bis *should* remove any inconsistencies with 
BIND, where present. Note that one major problem was the definition for 
DELETE, which (in RFC2518) required to remove all other bindings to the 
resource as well. AFAIK, this has been fixed in RFC2518bis.

So besides the fact that RFC2518bis talks about "internal members" 
rather than bindings, I'm not really sure that anything *needs* to be 
fixed. Geoff?

Regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 16 January 2004 15:00:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:51 UTC