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

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

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:38:02 -0500
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF29481505.63F45032-ON852570D7.0013C9BB-852570D7.0013FBF8@us.ibm.com>
Julian wrote on 12/13/2005 10:01:35 PM:

> Cullen Jennings wrote:
> > 
> > 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
> 
> I don't think so. As a matter of fact, unless somebody can come up with 
> as use case, defining a new compliance class seems to be completely 
useless.

I agree with Julian, and I haven't yet seen an even partially compelling
use case that motivates the introduction of a new compliance class.  I 
suggest
that unless such a compelling use case is identified very soon, this 
matter
be resolved by not introducing a new compliance class.

> > What is our take on Forced-Authenticate. Do we have a use case that 
requires
> > us to create a new class for this?
> 
> As far as I can tell, the consensus was to remove it.

That was my understanding as well.

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2005 03:38:20 GMT

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