Re: Locks and loopback bindings

Jim Whitehead wrote:
> ...
> These are good points.
> 
> That, plus the fact that I'm getting nowhere in convincing anyone else to
> change the semantics of loopback bindings, leads me to concede this point.
> 
> It's now fine with me not to include any additional language in the BIND
> specification about locks and lookback bindings.

OK, for purposes of tracking, I've added both issue and resolution to 
the document, see 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.issue.2.1.1_bind_loops_vs_locks>.

As far I can tell, the only other open discussion we have is about the 
behaviour of properties for multiple bindings on one resource. It seems 
that we're still far from consensus, so I'd like to submit this draft 
(undoing the broken REBIND description) ASAP.

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760