W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: WG last call on BIND

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:07:39 -0500
To: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFAE6892BE.8D951E98-ON85256F9C.00797CA0-85256F9C.00798CBC@us.ibm.com>
+1 on closing these three issues as resolved.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 02/02/2005 03:31:51 PM:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> the working group last call for BIND ended today (see announcement in 
> 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0001.html>).
> 
> As far as I can tell, we have a few issues left that we need to close in 

> some way or another before we can submit a new draft for IETF last call:
> 
> 
> 1) "Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings interact with 
> locks." <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2>
> 
> In my opinion, we have clarified semantics where RFC2518 + BIND (draft 
> 10) indeed were unclear. Lisa Dusseault has asked for additional 
> clarifications on LOCK refresh behaviour, but IMHO didn't provide any 
> compelling argument why this needs additional spec text.
> 
> So I'm +1 for closing this as "resolved".
> 
> 
> 2) "Bindings and DeltaV aren't fully interspecified" 
> <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5>
> 
> I think we have reached some kind of consensus that the spec shouldn't 
> say anything specific about BIND implications for RFC3253. Where we 
> disagree is whether it actually needs to state that certain things are 
> out-of-scope, and in which way. As far as I can tell, the whole 
> discussion is contained in the bug tracker comments, so it would be nice 

> if people would review the whole bug history and give some feedback 
> about whether something needs to be done and what.
> 
> 
> 3) "Clarify what servers may and may not do with privileges when BIND is 

> used" <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71>
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with BIND, and, if this 
> really is a problem, needs to be discussed in RFC3744 errata. Therefore 
> it should be closed (in the current form of a issue raised against 
BIND).
> 
> 
> Note that if we can get these issues resolved within the next two weeks, 

> we'll be able to submit a draft for IETF last call in time before the 
> next IETF meeting.
> 
> Thanks to all who reviewed the spec in the last few weeks!
> 
> Please also review all changes that have been made since draft -10 in 
> 
<http://www.webdav.org/bind/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.section.A.9
> >.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Julian Reschke
> 
> 
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> 
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2005 22:08:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:07 GMT