GULP vs RFC2518bis

Hi.

I'd really like to see some progress regarding this issue. In

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0281.html

I have tried to rephrase GULP so that it doesn't require the term "binding"
anymore. This should address the concerns of those who fear that a
dependency on the BIND spec is introduced.

To those who did object to GULP being part of RFC2518bis *please* review
this?

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 09:24:48 UTC