Re: Re (2): summary of BIND/RFC2518 status

Bob Denny wrote:
>>1) We will *not* add locking discussion to BIND (in fact, we may want to 
>>remove some locking-specific preconditions).
>>[... etc.]
> Thank Heaven. As an observer, this was going in a terrible direction.

I take that as agreement that locking should be moved into a separate 
document, instead of having advanced protocols (such as BIND) having to 
extend/fix RFC2518's definition of locks?

> In fact, it seems that DAV gets increasingly complex all the time, without
> apparent convergence. Furthermore, the server-side implementations outside
> Apache appear to be withering away. As such it seems less like a W3C
> standard and more like a private protocol for special purposes, owned by
> the Apache working group and a few client vendors who implemented it.
> Is WebDAV really a standard? I think not.

Well, it's a proposed standard, and many many clients and servers are 
using it. It's somehow "beyond hype", but that's not necessarily bad.

>   -- Bob  (DAV observer for 4+ years, and someone who implemented 2+
>            years ago, only to be met with deafening silence from
>            customers)

Our customers definitively use WebDAV intensively, be it for editing 
using Microsoft Office, for mass import/export, or as transport protocol 
for interconnecting separate servers.

Thanks for the feedback,


<green/>bytes GmbH -- -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2004 02:34:01 UTC