- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 21:14:33 +0100
- To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- CC: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, "WebDAV WG))'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > ... > I would also like to have locking behavior defined, which is why I continue > to advocate splitting off the locking protocol from 2518bis for rapid > action. But putting a couple of bits of information about the locking > protocol in the binding protocol that have a 50/50 chance of conflicting > with how the semantics are defined in the locking protocol makes no > sense at all. > ... ...speaking of which, what *is* the status of RFC2518bis? It was on the IETF meeting's agenda, but for some reason it doesn't seem that it was discussed there. Unless there are concrete plans to actually work on it (and the issues raised on the mailing list and now collected at <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/>), I'd propose to actually take out the locking part (as repeatedly proposed in the past 12 months) and continue work on <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-locking-latest.html>. This would significantly reduce the complexity of the base protocol (see experimental edit at <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-base-latest.html>, and thus make it much easier to progress to Draft standard). Best regards, Julian P.S.: last mention of RFC2518bis on the mailing list seems to be in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JulSep/0166.html>: > While I appreciate all the issues reported with RFC2518, I am not > dealing with them until we have issue status tracking more firmly in > hand somehow. Joe is investigating tools to help with this issue. > > Thanks, > Lisa -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 28 December 2004 20:15:12 UTC