- From: Elias Sinderson <elias@soe.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:58:12 -0800
- To: webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <43876CD4.4050109@cse.ucsc.edu>
Hi All, We (Julian, Lisa, Jim, Cullen and I) discussed the enclosed list of issues during the 11/25 telecon - issues on which we reached some sort of consensus are marked with a (+), while those that were floored for future discussion are marked with a (_). Best, Elias ___________________ > Critical: > 27 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27> - Copy > vs live properties (+) > 40 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40> - > definition of null resource gone (+) > 44 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44> - > OPTIONS * (_) > 62 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62> - href > format (+) > 73 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73> - > "Changes" section missing (+) > 86 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86> - DAV > header definitions should use RFC3864 templates (+) > > Major: > 13 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13> - New > ETag requirements (_) > 16 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16> - > Trailing slash required in collection names? (+) > 18 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18> - no > record of consensus for force authenticate (+) > 22 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22> - > attributes on properties (+) > 23 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23> - Lock > discovery vs shared locks (+) > 25 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25> - Lock > to unmapped URL (+) > > Normal (but fairly easy to resolve): > 41 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41> - > Paragraph numbering/nesting broken in Section 13 (+) > 49 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49> - > propfind XML description incorrect (+) > 50 <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50> - > Property terminology inconsistent with RFC3253 (+)
Received on Friday, 25 November 2005 19:58:37 UTC