W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: Comments on bind-08

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:01:26 -0500
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: ejw@cs.ucsc.edu, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, "'WebDAV (WebDAV WG)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD7F63AB6.BCA326FF-ON85256F5E.004CE761-85256F5E.004D081E@us.ibm.com>
I agree with Julian.  The conclusion that I believe Jim, Julian, and I
reached was that this material should appear in RFC2518bis, not that it
should appear in both (for the reasons stated by Julian below).


w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 12/02/2004 03:50:37 AM:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> >> Yes, that's correct. I'm fine with this being added as an action item 
> >> 2518bis as well.
> >>
> >>
> > Sounds good... getting such an example into RFC sooner as well as 
> > makes sense to me.
> Actually, and with all due respect, to me this seems to be lame.
> Are we supposed to put examples that having nothing whatsover to do with 

> BIND per se into the BIND spec just because it happens to be the next 
> spec that's supposed to get finished? I fear that is an open-ended set 
> of possible clarifications, and doing all of them certainly is not the 
> right way to finish the spec.
> Speaking of which, what is the status of RFC2518bis?
> Best regards, Julian
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2004 14:01:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:33 UTC