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

Re: locking clarifications/extensions vs BIND draft vs RFC2518bis

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:53:34 -0500
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF160D66D3.DD88A37F-ON85256E1E.0016DE6A-85256E1E.0046CA40@us.ibm.com>

I am willing to work with Jason on this document.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 01/16/2004 03:12:01 PM:

> 
> In an off-list mail, Geoff Clemm wrote:
> 
>  > I would strongly advocate separating locking from base WebDAV
>  > functionality
>  > for the following reasons:
>  >
>  > - WebDAV is already a family of specs (3253, ACL, redirect, 
ordering),
>  > each of which defines an optional feature-package beyond what
>  > is defined
>  > in the base spec.  It would be more consistent to handle locking
>  > (which is an optional feature-package) the same way.
>  >
>  > - Having a smaller "base WebDAV spec" I believe will make WebDAV more
>  > accessible to new implementors, since the base spec will be
>  > less daunting in size.  You don't have to
>  > read/understand the locking extensions to
>  > understand versioning, ACL, redirect, or ordering, but the current
>  > packaging of locking in with the base protocol makes it look
>  > like you do.
>  >
>  > - It allows us to make more rapid progress on getting the locking
>  > functionality standardized (i.e. it doesn't have to wait until we've
>  > resolved all the other issues in 2518bis).
> 
> I agree on all these points. However, for this plan to work we need
> 
> - buy-in from the RFC2518bis authors (Lisa and Jason),
> - volunteers for the new document and
> - broad support from the working group members (that is, this mailing 
list)
Received on Saturday, 17 January 2004 07:53:40 UTC

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