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

Re: [Bug 5] Bindings and DeltaV aren't fully interspecified

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 22:02:38 -0500
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3FB8E618.93DF7278-ON85256F5F.001057EC-85256F5F.0010B867@us.ibm.com>
So what is the process here?  How does one ever close out a bug if
the original author can just re-open it at will?

In particular, I suggest that at a minimum, someone other than the 
reporter of the bug be required to re-open it, to indicate that there is 
least one other person that feels it is not resolved.

Otherwise any individual can effectively block progress in any spec.


Lisa wrote on 12/02/2004 07:59:07 PM:

> http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5
> lisa@osafoundation.org changed:
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
>              Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
>          Resolution|WORKSFORME                  |
> ------- Additional Comments From lisa@osafoundation.org  2004-12-02 
> 16:59 -------
> Can a client replace a Working Resource with a binding to some existing
> resource?  If so, what does that do when it does CHECKIN that 
> working resource?
> can a client use BIND to create a binding to a workspace?  Can a 
> client use BIND
> to create a binding to an activity?  etc. for each new resource 
typedefined in
> RFC3253... MUST the server support each of these operations?
> When a property contains an href, and that href points to a resource 
> multiple bindings, "it doesn't matter which binding is reported by 
> the server".
>  Ok, fine -- so we need to state that the server could show any 
> binding URL and
> the client MUST be able to handle that.
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Received on Friday, 3 December 2004 03:03:12 UTC

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