Re: GULP vs RFC2518bis

I think GULP should, with the proposed changes, go into RFC2518 bis.

LOCKing semantics need to be defined in 2518bis and not in any
side-track specification (sorry Goeff ;).

//Stefan

Am Freitag, 07.03.03, um 15:23 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Julian 
Reschke:

>
> 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 11:23:06 UTC