RE: DAV properties, compliance requirements

> Section 13 of 2518:
>
> 13.1 and 13.2 both have "should be defined"... should those "should"s be
> "SHOULD"s?

Probably.  Although, reflecting on it, I can't recall why these were made
SHOULDs, and not MUSTs.  I seem to recall a conversation where we felt some
embedded servers might not want to provide storage for these properties, but
this doesn't seem to be an especially strong rationale.

> The other 13.x sections have clear compliance requirements,
> apart from 13.8 (lockdiscovery) which is a tad vague, maybe the
> requirement from section 6.6 could be copied here?

Well, I'm opposed to copying the requirement over (it leads to problems down
the road editing the requirements), but a cross-reference back to 6.6 seems
to be in order.

- Jim

Received on Thursday, 1 April 1999 19:33:06 UTC