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

New compliance class - was Re: [Bug 200] remove "bis" compliance class

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:04:53 -0800
To: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BFC49395.6538C%fluffy@cisco.com>


I just read section 17 and, well, I'm certainly not clear how versioning
works. 

Is there a need for a client to do something different based on if it is
talking to a server that does all the MUST in 2518  and a server that does
all the MUST in bis. If so, the description in 17.1 may be problematic. If
this is the case, can someone provide an concrete example of this? If there
is no case of this, we can use the same class for all the MUSTs in bis. If
not we will need a way to tell if a server does all the MUST in 2518 or all
the MUST in bis. 

The description in 17.2 leaves me very unclear of what needs to be
implemented to be class 2. By "support" do you mean implement the MUSTs? The
SHOULDs?  the MAYs?

Any reason not to rename "class bis" to "class 3".


What is our take on Forced-Authenticate. Do we have a use case that requires
us to create a new class for this?



On 12/12/05 11:54 AM, "bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu" <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu> wrote:

> 
> http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------- Additional Comments From ejw@cs.ucsc.edu  2005-12-12 11:54 -------
> This should be discussed during the teleconference. If there is no agreement,
> we should ask Cullen to
> make a consensus call. There appears to be a fundamental disagreement here.
> 
> 
> 
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2005 23:05:23 GMT

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