- From: <edgar@edgarschwarz.de>
- Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 22:58:44 +0200 (MEST)
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
- Cc: edgar@edgarschwarz.de
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> schrieb: > Locking has been optional in RFC2518, so there shouldn't be any problem > whatsoever having a RFC2518bis-minus-locking going to draft. In fact > it'll be easier because locking is the area that needs most attention. > > That being said, what *is* your position regarding separating locking > into a separate document? I wonder at the moment what we win by locking ? Roughly speaking it's for avoiding collaborative workers to damage other peoples work. But it seems defining and implementing locks successfully is very difficult. OTOH there is DeltaV which also is a means (Albeit more complex, but servers and clients are coming) to avoid collaborative conflicts. So who needs locking ? Me definitely not. I would be happy to implement DeltaV and the underlying RFC2518 stuff without having to implement locks. So doing a RFC2518bis-minus-locking would be fine with me. And whoever wants locks because he doesn't like DeltaV can work on a lock spec. This also would help BIND, which wouldn't need to say anything about locks anymore. Locking has been a pain in the ass for years. So let's get rid of it in RFC2518bis ! This really could help us to make progress because many disagreements will disappear. Just my 2 cent without giving it a lot of thought. Cheers, Edgar
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2004 16:58:47 UTC