- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:32:27 +0100
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I explicitly support GULP being added RFC2518. In particular, I ask everybody to either state - if they find GULP technically incorrect (so that we can fix it) or - otherwise explain why it can't be added to RFC2518bis as is. 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 Clemm, Geoff > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 3:25 AM > To: WebDAV > Subject: RE: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues) > > > > 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 > > -----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 > > -brian > briank@xythos.com >
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 03:32:38 UTC