- From: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:06:44 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: acl@webdav.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Are you talking about making this change during AUTH 48? This is not a time at which substantive changes are allowed. You will note that this draft has been significantly delayed in publication because of the changes which were included during the last round, including a need to return the whole document to the IESG agenda for re-approval and a restart in the RFC Editor's queue. Doing this again will raise very serious questions about the extent to which this working group has reviewed specs sent to the IESG/RFC Editor. Ted Hardie co-AD, Applications Area At 9:06 PM +0200 04/18/2004, Julian Reschke wrote: >Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > >>I agree that it makes sense to remove the "protected" qualifier. >>Julian: Can you take care of this? >> >>Cheers, >>Geoff > >We're talking about ... ><http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-acl-latest.html#PROPERTY_inherited-acl-set> >and Eric's request on the ACL mailing list >(<http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2004-April/001815.html>). > > >I agree that servers should be allowed not to protect that property. >I'm not so sure about the best wording, how about saying...: > >To stay consistent with other property descriptions, I'd prefer to >remove the word "protected" but also to add...: > >"Servers MAY implement DAV:inherited-acl-set as protected property." > >I'll make that change for now; if people feel we shouldn't make that >change they need to speak up *now*, as we are currently doing the >last edits on the *RFC* document which then will be published Really >Soon. > >Regards, Julian > > >-- ><green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 19 April 2004 13:08:57 UTC