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: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 15:30:26 -0500
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFFDD1EC23.265955C7-ON85256E2E.0070A1C9-85256E2E.0070A9BE@us.ibm.com>

Yes, the specs all use the DAV: header to indicate what they support.
The only difference is that rather than using integers (1, 2), they use
strings.

Cheers,
Geoff

Elias wrote on 02/02/2004 02:30:50 PM:

> 
> +1, for much the same reasons outlined in Geoff's post below.
> 
> Q: 2518 defines two levels of compliance, depending on whether locking 
> is supported or not - would it make sense to try and extend this 
> approach to cover all of the related specs?
> 
> Cheers,
> Elias
> 
> Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> 
> >I agree with Julian, and strongly advocate approach #1
> >(take locking out, keep bind out, make everything more modular, 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).
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Geoff
> >
> >
> >Julian wrote on 01/17/2004 03:52:29 AM:
> >
> > 
> >
> >>In an off-list mail, Jim Whitehead wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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).
> >>
> >>Well, I think that would be a radical change to our strategy...
> >>
> >>Seems that opinions vary between
> >>
> >>1) take locking out, keep BIND out, make everyhing more modular and
> >>2) keep locking in, add BIND, publish RFC2518+BIND (staying at the 
> >>"proposed level")
> >>
> >>I'd definifively vote for 1).
> >>
> >>Julian
> >>
> >>-- 
> >><green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> 
Received on Monday, 2 February 2004 15:30:55 UTC

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