Re: REBIND and lock token submission example

Jim Whitehead wrote:
> My recollection is that Lisa was in favor, and Geoff was neutral. Given that
> we're talking about adding an example, and not additional requirements, my
> recommendation is to consider this sufficient rough consensus, and add the
> example.
> 
> 
>>If so, would 
>>it make sense to *replace* the REBIND example we already have 
>>in section 6.1 
>>(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-late
>>st.html#rfc.section.6.1>)?
> 
> 
> I'd say no -- having both examples makes sense, since the first one is
> relatively simple, and the second one is more complex.
> 
> I'd also recommend adding text to the example description along the lines of
> "The binding between CollZ and C1 creates a loop in the containment
> hierarchy. Servers are not required to support such loops, though the server
> in this example does."

Can we rephrase this a bit? It's never one specific binding that creates 
the loop....

> The reason for this is to ensure that implementors aren't accidentally left
> with the impression they must implement loop-causing bindings.

OK, proposed example text in 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.section.6.2>. 
Do we need to say something about the "If" header?

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Monday, 13 December 2004 22:36:06 UTC