Re: BIND and live property value consistency

Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> 
> As Julian states below, this is a very reasonable thread to pursue in
> the context of RFC2518bis, and given that RFC2518bis
> is a current high priority deliverable for this workgroup, it baffles me 
> why we
> are having this discussion in a BIND protocol thread.
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff

Same here.

Below is a proposed modest addition to 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.section.2.6>, 
which currently reads:

"Consistent with [RFC2518] the value of a dead property MUST be 
independent of the number of bindings to its host resource or of the 
path submitted to PROPFIND."

Proposed text:

"Consistent with [RFC2518], the value of a dead property MUST be 
independent of the number of bindings to its host resource or of the 
path submitted to PROPFIND.  On the other hand, the behaviour for each 
live property depends on it's individual definition, which in turn 
should define how the property value behaves (for example, see 
[RFC3744], section 5, paragraph 2)."

Feedback appreciated,

Julian

Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 11:43:38 UTC