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

Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:41:21 +0100
Message-ID: <437BA781.2090009@gmx.de>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
CC: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
> On the call this morning, I thought that Geoff outlined 3 proposals
> 
> 1) change nothing (assuming says MUST put in header)
> 2) don't change how anything works today but add the clarifying statement
> that servers MAY NOT put it in a body
> 3) change to say that servers MUST put in both body and header

Right.

> Now I might have the descriptions of these three all wrong but I am pretty
> sure that I heard that 1 or 2 worked for someone and 2 or 3 worked for
> someone else and that 2 worked for everyone. I thought we decided to put 2
> in the next rev of the *draft* and then ask the WG (folks on the list
> including people on this thread) had a problem with that draft.
> 
> What part of this did I not get? What are we still discussing?

No, you are right. These options were discussed, and 2) was something 
everybody seemed to be able to agree upon.

Sorry if I added to the confusion. So I'll rephrase that: when in the 
future we come across things that could *also* go into an implementation 
guide instead of the spec, we may want to actually consider to start a 
document like that; and I'm volunteering to work on that. That would be 
separate from RFC2518bis, and potentially not even an IETF document 
(unless the WG would want it to be that way).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2005 21:59:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:11 GMT