Subject: Re: Bind issues

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:03:03 +0100

Lisa,

you haven't replied to my mail dated Nov 18
(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003OctDec/0207.html>).
As far as I can tell among the three questions you raised,

- one is closed (by the introduction of REBIND in addition to MOVE),

- one is still open (bind loop error marshalling), proposal for resolution
is at
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003OctDec/0200.html>

- one will be closed by updating GULP
(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0367.html>)
to clarify when a lock token counts as "submitted".

Do you agree?

Besides the error marshalling question, this still leaves the issue open
where GULP belongs. My recollection from the Interim meeting in January is
that we planned to add GULP to RFC2518bis
(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0064.html>).
If this isn't the plan anymore (why?), we'd have to consider adding GULP to
the BIND spec. This would be of course a very bad thing, as GULP in fact
says little about bindings, and we'd introduce the risk that BIND and
RFC2518bis say different things about locks.

As we've had this discussion for over a year now with little progress, I'd
like the mailing list to simply vote on this issue.

Here's the proposal:

"RFC2518bis should include the text from the latest GULP proposal (after
possibly final adjustments) as *normative* description of WebDAV locking
behaviour."

In any case, the BIND draft has been stable for a long time now, and we
really should get the final changes done so we can last-call it.

Regards,

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760