W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:09:29 +0200
Message-ID: <48EB6D99.7090709@gmx.de>
To: Werner Donné <werner.donne@re.be>
CC: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Werner Donné wrote:
> There are indeed no additional semantics for UNCHECKOUT in section 14.

Well, we have an erratum for UNCHECKOUT in Section 14, and Geoff has 
already proposed a resolution; do you disagree with it?

> Therefore, I think the semantics of section section 4.5 apply, because
> a version-controlled collection is also a version-controlled resource.

Yes, those apply; but how exactly do they help clarifying what the 
server needs to do?

> Though the introduction of section 14 mentions workspaces, I don't think
> the merge feature is limited to workspaces. It is allowed to use a
> version-controlled collection as the request URI and a collection version
> as the source. If both would be associated with the same version history,
> for example, it would be strange if in such a case new version-controlled
> members would be created as described in section 4.11.

That's possible (I haven't implemented merge); and maybe that's a 
separate erratum.

Anyway, I'd like to stay focused on the BIND vs RFC3253 issue -- I think 
it's sufficient if we describe a case where RFC 3253 *clearly* requires 
BIND semantics; so is the currently proposed text correct?

BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2008 14:10:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:16 GMT