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

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