Re: Overwrite:T behavior for COPY

"Geoffrey M. Clemm" wrote:

> A third alternative was suggested at the recent IETF meeting
> by Roy Fielding, namely, that the "update" behavior was actually
> the behavior intended for COPY with Overwrite:T, so the
> right thing to do is to make this clarification in the
> versioning protocol, rather than introducing a new "update" value
> for Overwrite or a new Update header.

Should this be in the versioning protocol, or in an update to 2518? (Or
is it intended that the versioning RFC update 2518?)

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Belief is not relevant to truth.             |
|francis@ecal.com|                                             |
\==============================================================/

Received on Thursday, 21 December 2000 12:13:39 UTC