- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:00:10 +0200
- To: Manfred Baedke <manfred.baedke@greenbytes.de>
- CC: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Well, there's lots of stuff in Sections 6 and 7 that is redundant and partly misleading. This very section however has been instrumental in explaining the relation between locking and bindings. Thus I personally would prefer not to remove it altogether (lots of people *didn't* grasp the relationship between locks, the resource being locked, and bindings of that resource, and it was good to have at least that statement in RFC2518). Best regards, Julian Manfred Baedke schrieb: > > Julian, > > I really think that the text can be dropped completely. I do not see any > implications that do not already follow from previous sections. > > Regards, > Manfred > > Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> Lisa Dusseault schrieb: >>> >>> I would rather keep the text myself but I was trying to follow WG >>> consensus. Do you have suggested changes to the text? >> >> Just change the text not to use the term "covered by", maybe say >> "protect". >> >> Best regards, Julian >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 10:00:21 UTC