Subject: RE: Bind issues

From: Jason Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 23:01:17 -0500

On Tuesday, 12/02/2003 at 05:35 EST, Jason Crawford wrote:
> On Monday, 12/01/2003 at 01:30 PST, "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]> 
wrote:
> > I don't have a problem with GULP.  What I'm trying to do is make sure 
it
> > fits into the WebDAV specification.  Sure, we could bung it in 
randomly,
> > any section remotely related to locking.  Instead, however, I tried to
> > 
> > - keep to the structure of the spec
> > - have the spec be linguistically consistent with GULP
> > - have the spec be logically consistent with GULP
> > 
> > I'd still like to hear how this could be better, for example whether 
any
> > subtlety was lost in the way GULP was incorporated.
> > 
> > But if you think this is irrelevant and you want to call a vote, Jim 
can
> > determine consensus.  Please indicate where you would like me to put 
GULP
> > into RFC2518bis. 
> An appendix? 

Sorry that I wasn't clear.  I was suggesting that perhaps putting GULP in 
an appendix would satisfy Lisa's concerns about making sure it fits in the 
spec.

But I'm not sure that even that addresses the concern about 2518bis being 
slow to press and us not wanting to wait for 2518bis before we can 
reference that text. 

Perhaps another option is to create a separate rfc for GULP.   I assume it 
could be published faster that 2518bis and it could be referenced by 
multiple related documents without suggesting that it bears a special 
relationship with binding support.

J.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:27:52 +0100

Jason Crawford wrote:

> Perhaps another option is to create a separate rfc for GULP.   I assume 
> it could be published faster that 2518bis and it could be referenced by 

I thought about that as well. How about a separate document called 
"Locking Simplifications to WebDAV" that

- contains GULP
- contains the locking clarifications from RFC2518bis (refresh, 
lock-token header, submission of lock tokens)
- contains the locking simplifications from RFC2518bis (lock-null)
- contains the locking extensions from RFC2518bis as optional features 
(DAV:rootlock)

This would become a Proposed Draft, updating but not obsoleting RFC2518 
and RFC3253.

If we can agree on scope and procedure, I'm willing to help writing it.

Julian

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

---

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 08:34:53 -0500

Julian's proposal sounds good to me.  I'm willing to help Julian 
write it.

Cheers,
Geoff