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 07:56:41 -0500
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF99F3DB0D.950B4EB6-ON85256E1E.0046F868-85256E1E.004712B7@us.ibm.com>

Actually, I meant to say "I am willing to work with Julian on this 
document",
(but I am in fact also willing to work with Jason on this document :-).

Cheers,
Geoff

Geoff wrote on 01/17/2004 07:53:34 AM:

> 
> 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 07:56:47 UTC

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