Re: BIND and live property value consistency

The proposed additional text is fine with me, although I'd probably
delete the phrase "which in turn should define how the property value
behaves", since I believe it is redundant.

Cheers,
Geoff


Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 07/08/2005 07:43:31 AM:

> 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