Re: summary of BIND/RFC2518 status

Julian,

Great approach in my opinion. Locking is by far the worst thing about 
implementing WebDAV. I had no plans at all to implement it since my 
WebDAV back end already supporting all of the locking features I 
needed. But I was forced to implement it because some WebDAV clients 
(e.g. MacOS X) won't allow any writes unless locking is implemented.

Thanks for your work on this.

John DeSoi, Ph.D.



On May 2, 2004, at 6:11 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Unless people can think of new arguments, I'd propose that the WG 
> simply votes on the issue. To restate our proposal:
>
> 1) We will *not* add locking discussion to BIND (in fact, we may want 
> to remove some locking-specific preconditions).
>
> 2) We'll extract all parts relevant to Locking from RFC2518, integrate 
> GULP and resolve all locking related issues from the RF2518 issues 
> list,  and publish this as a separate LOCKING document (starting as 
> Proposed standard updating RFC2518).
>
> 3) As a consequence, the authors of RFC2518bis should remove the 
> locking part of the specification (once both RFC2518bis becomes a 
> Draft standard and LOCKING is a Proposed standard, it will be 
> relatively simple to advance LOCKING as well).
>
> 4) draft-ietf-webdav-bind-05 as published can be wg-last-called after 
> possibly referencing the LOCKING spec.

Received on Sunday, 2 May 2004 09:17:43 UTC