Re: BIND issue "binding properties", was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07.txt

I agree with Jason and Julian.  I believe that there was rough
consensus on this resolution, by any reasonable definition of
rough consensus (in this case, agreement by every working group
member that participated in the discussion, other than
the working group member that raised the issue).

Cheers,
Geoff

Jason wrote on 10/15/2004 03:48:01 PM:

> > See 
> > 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JanMar/0154.html> 
> > and 
> > 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JanMar/0146.html>.
> > 
> > In the discussion thread 
> > (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-
> auth/2004JanMar/thread.html#154
> > >), 
> > I see three people agreeing (Geoff, Jason and myself) and nobody 
> > supporting Lisa's point of view, so, as far as I can tell, there was a 

> > rough consensus that this isn't a problem at *that* point of time. 
> 
> Seeing my name here prompted me to think about what my position is.  I 
came 
> up with it and then checked the thread and I pretty much agree with what 
I 
> said in the thread. 
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JanMar/0164.html 
> 
> I'd only add, that we can define an extension later that clarifies 
when/how 
> properties can change by URL.  But I don't think we need that now and I 
think
> we're better off not adding it right now.  Until we/someone do/does, 
people 
> implementing bind should be trying real hard not to vary properties 
> by URL.