- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 01:24:05 +0200
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Lisa, it probably would be safer just to say that there was a discussion and to point to the relevant mailig list archive enties. The problem with the "interoperable solution" is that the "solution" *itself* is in conflict with the base spec RFC2616 (HTTP), so by definition it can't be the protocol that an RFC based on HTTP recommends. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 10:37 PM > To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Clemm, Geoff'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: Links to latest bis working docs > > > > Yes, I have little problem with including more information in the > *extremely brief* summary of the debate. It is always difficult to > summarize a debate, whether briefly or at length. I had thought that > that putting the summary in a non-standards-track document would be > safe. > > I still believe that "interoperable" is a fair characterization, however > I can also add the words "non-compliant". If we go about qualifying > implementations based on full compliance, I fear that random software > bugs would disqualify many many implementations. > > lisa > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 1:09 PM > > To: Lisa Dusseault; 'Clemm, Geoff'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > > Subject: RE: Links to latest bis working docs > > > > Lisa, > > > > my complaint was that it lists only one of many reasons for rejecting > yet, > > but also states that there are interoperable implementations. They may > > exist, but at least one of them (IIS) does not conform to RFC2616 > (HTTP), > > so > > I don't think it qualifies as relevant implementation. > > > > Julian > > > > -- > > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > > > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 10:06 PM > > > To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > > > Subject: RE: Links to latest bis working docs > > > > > > > > > > > > Please note that the "Translate" header does not appear in the > "revised > > > [2518] document". > > > > > > The "RFC2518 Changes" document discusses issues that have been > brought > > > up on the list -- including the proposal that had been made, on the > > > list, to standardize the Translate header. This document is only to > > > help keep track of issues (together with Jason's page) and RFC bis > > > changes, and is not on any standards track. Note also that this > > > document briefly, and I believe correctly, summarizes that the > working > > > group rejected the solution. > > > > > > If you still have problems with this characterization and where it > > > appears, please explain. > > > > > > Lisa > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > > > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org] > > > > On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 12:26 PM > > > > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > > > > Subject: RE: Links to latest bis working docs > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Julian. Since the consensus of the working group > > > > was to reject the Translate header approach (for the reasons > > > > Julian mentions, and others), I believe it should not be > introduced > > > > in the revised document, and definitely should not be > characterized as > > > an > > > > "interoperable solution". > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Geoff > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 2:37 PM > > > > To: Lisa Dusseault; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > > > > Subject: RE: Links to latest bis working docs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just two comments on: > > > > > > > > 1.1 Source property > > > > The Source property has not had interoperability demonstrated, but > > > > messages > > > > to the list support keeping some way of retrieving the source of > > > > dynamically-generated Web pages. An interoperable solution exists > > > (the > > > > Microsoft Translate header) but has received rejection on the list > due > > > to > > > > its lack of support for dynamically-generated resources with > multiple > > > > source > > > > files. > > > > > > > > > > > > - the Translate header violates RFC2616 which explicitly says that > > > variant > > > > handling is *not* supposed to switch between "getting the source" > and > > > > "executing a script" > > > > > > > > - the actual implementation in IIS breaks RFC2616 in that it > doesn't > > > list > > > > "Translate" as request header on which the GET result varies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, Julian > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- > tel:+492512807760 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > > > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On > > > > Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 5:07 PM > > > > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > > > > Cc: joels@microsoft.com > > > > Subject: Links to latest bis working docs > > > > > > > > > > > > I promised yesterday I'd put up links to the most recent > > > work-in-progress. > > > > http://www.sharemation.com/~milele/public/dav/draft-ietf-webdav- > > > > rfc2518bis.d > > > > oc > > > > > http://www.sharemation.com/~milele/public/dav/RFC2518%20Changes.doc > > > > Sometime after the Interop, I'll be doing the real formatted draft > > > thing > > > > of > > > > course. > > > > Lisa > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 19:24:38 UTC