- From: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:34:45 -0800
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
- Cc: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 06:24 PM, Clemm, Geoff wrote: > > 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. > > Cheers, > Geoff Geoff, I'll get you comments RSN. -brian briank@xythos.com
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 21:34:53 UTC