- From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:07:39 -0500
- To: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFAE6892BE.8D951E98-ON85256F9C.00797CA0-85256F9C.00798CBC@us.ibm.com>
+1 on closing these three issues as resolved. Cheers, Geoff Julian wrote on 02/02/2005 03:31:51 PM: > > Hi, > > the working group last call for BIND ended today (see announcement in > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0001.html>). > > As far as I can tell, we have a few issues left that we need to close in > some way or another before we can submit a new draft for IETF last call: > > > 1) "Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings interact with > locks." <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2> > > In my opinion, we have clarified semantics where RFC2518 + BIND (draft > 10) indeed were unclear. Lisa Dusseault has asked for additional > clarifications on LOCK refresh behaviour, but IMHO didn't provide any > compelling argument why this needs additional spec text. > > So I'm +1 for closing this as "resolved". > > > 2) "Bindings and DeltaV aren't fully interspecified" > <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5> > > I think we have reached some kind of consensus that the spec shouldn't > say anything specific about BIND implications for RFC3253. Where we > disagree is whether it actually needs to state that certain things are > out-of-scope, and in which way. As far as I can tell, the whole > discussion is contained in the bug tracker comments, so it would be nice > if people would review the whole bug history and give some feedback > about whether something needs to be done and what. > > > 3) "Clarify what servers may and may not do with privileges when BIND is > used" <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71> > > As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with BIND, and, if this > really is a problem, needs to be discussed in RFC3744 errata. Therefore > it should be closed (in the current form of a issue raised against BIND). > > > Note that if we can get these issues resolved within the next two weeks, > we'll be able to submit a draft for IETF last call in time before the > next IETF meeting. > > Thanks to all who reviewed the spec in the last few weeks! > > Please also review all changes that have been made since draft -10 in > <http://www.webdav.org/bind/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.section.A.9 > >. > > > Best regards, > > Julian Reschke > > > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 >
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2005 22:08:11 UTC