Re: GULP vs RFC2518bis

On Friday, March 7, 2003, at 06:23  AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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

Julian,

I plan to review GULP ASAP.

-brian
briank@xythos.com

Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 14:59:53 UTC