- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 02:21:57 +0100
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu wrote: > http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=172 > > lisa@osafoundation.org changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status|NEW |RESOLVED > Resolution| |FIXED > > > > ------- Additional Comments From lisa@osafoundation.org 2005-11-15 17:11 ------- > I believe we came to consensus in a phone call and thus I'm making changes in > -08, marking this 'fixed', and the WG can confirm whether the resulting draft > changes are acceptable. Lisa, this is hard to argue with unless you state what you think the consensus was. My recollection is that opaquelocktoken can not obsoleted, because a) it's in use in existing implementations and b) its semantics is a true superset of urn:uuid. Thus it should be kept, but it's definition can be stripped to a minimum, referring normatively to syntax and generation instructions in the URN:UUID RFC. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2005 01:23:09 UTC