W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 21:24:47 -0500
Message-ID: <E4F2D33B98DF7E4880884B9F0E6FDEE2021C5988@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

GULP is actually pretty short, so I probably wouldn't mind
adding a copy to the binding protocol *if* we get consensus
that GULP correctly defines the WebDAV locking semantics.
What I don't want to have happen is for the binding protocol
to become a draft standard and then have RFC-2518bis decide
that some GULP variant is needed, and have the binding RFC
conflict with 2518bis RFC (with the resulting interoperability
problems inevitably appearing).

So I'll take this opportunity to again ask everyone to either
explicitly support the current GULP proposal, or identify any
problems in semantics or terminology, so we can get this 
language committed to 2518bis ASAP.


-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Korver [mailto:briank@xythos.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 8:31 PM
To: WebDAV
Subject: Re: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)

On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 01:50  PM, Clemm, Geoff wrote:
> I wouldn't want to tug any harder on that particular string (i.e.
> defining precisely what "protect" means), or else we'd end up needing
> to include most of the GULP (Grand Unified Locking Proposal) in the
> binding draft.

Given that I think that the binding draft needs to be more
explicit about the behavior of locks, what would be so awful
about including some of GULP?

> Since we currently only have definitions of the semantics of write
> locks, I try to avoid speculating on what semantics non-write locks
> may have some day.
> Cheers,
> Geoff

Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 21:26:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:28 UTC