- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:41:34 +0100
- To: John Barone <jbarone@xythos.com>
- CC: 'Geoffrey M Clemm' <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, 'Kevin Wiggen' <kwiggen@xythos.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
John Barone wrote: >> Again, what's wrong with REBIND? You can implement REBIND without > implementing >> anything else in the BIND spec. For that matter, you'd probably want to > implement >> UNBIND as well (as DELETE shares the non-atomic properties with MOVE). > > I don't understand what's proposed here. > > Are you proposing that we leave the 2518-bis spec. silent on this matter, > and simply implement pieces of the binding spec. to provide this capability? Exactly. > If so, that doesn't make any sense to me, since what we're really talking > about is a different spec. with different requirements. The way I see it, > that has no bearing on this spec. or this discussion. Well, both specs are discussed here, and both are supposed to be submitted to the IESG at roughly the same time. > If instead you're proposing that we add a method REBIND to this spec., with > an appropriate definition; my concern is that REBIND has a specific meaning > that's fleshed out by the context provided in the binding spec., but that > meaning doesn't translate to the 2518-bis spec., where we're talking about > MOVEs, COPYs, and DELETEs, not BINDs, UNBINDs, and REBINDs. That seems to be a very theoretical argument, unless you can show exactly how REBIND isn't what you need... Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2006 19:09:48 UTC