Subject: Re: summary of BIND/RFC2518 status

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 12:11:08 +0200

Hi all.

Three weeks ago, I have tried to summarize this dicussion in the 
following mail...:

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004AprJun/0049.html>

Unfortunately, there hasn't been any feedback at all. I'd like to think 
that this means that everybody agrees, but realistically it probably 
means that people are either getting tired of this discussion (no new 
arguments), or for reasons unclear to me prefer the WG not to make any 
progress at all.

Geoff and I have volunteered to author a standalone WebDAV Locking 
specification, and I haven't seen any other proposal that would both 
resolve the current situation and have people volunteering to implement it.

Unless people can think of new arguments, I'd propose that the WG simply 
votes on the issue. To restate our proposal:

1) We will *not* add locking discussion to BIND (in fact, we may want to 
remove some locking-specific preconditions).

2) We'll extract all parts relevant to Locking from RFC2518, integrate 
GULP and resolve all locking related issues from the RF2518 issues list, 
  and publish this as a separate LOCKING document (starting as Proposed 
standard updating RFC2518).

3) As a consequence, the authors of RFC2518bis should remove the locking 
part of the specification (once both RFC2518bis becomes a Draft standard 
and LOCKING is a Proposed standard, it will be relatively simple to 
advance LOCKING as well).

4) draft-ietf-webdav-bind-05 as published can be wg-last-called after 
possibly referencing the LOCKING spec.

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-locking-latest.html> 
  currently is a simple container of all stuff that would go into the 
LOCKING spec (RFC2518 parts, open issues, GULP). 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-base-latest.html> 
is an experimental edit of RFC2518 demonstrating the effects of removing 
  Locking from the protocol.

Feedback appreciated.

Best regards, Julian

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

---

From: John DeSoi <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 09:16:28 -0400

Julian,

Great approach in my opinion. Locking is by far the worst thing about 
implementing WebDAV. I had no plans at all to implement it since my 
WebDAV back end already supporting all of the locking features I 
needed. But I was forced to implement it because some WebDAV clients 
(e.g. MacOS X) won't allow any writes unless locking is implemented.

Thanks for your work on this.

John DeSoi, Ph.D.

On May 2, 2004, at 6:11 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Unless people can think of new arguments, I'd propose that the WG 
> simply votes on the issue. To restate our proposal:
>
> 1) We will *not* add locking discussion to BIND (in fact, we may want 
> to remove some locking-specific preconditions).
>
> GULP and resolve all locking related issues from the RF2518 issues 
> list,  and publish this as a separate LOCKING document (starting as 
> Proposed standard updating RFC2518).
>
> 3) As a consequence, the authors of RFC2518bis should remove the 
> locking part of the specification (once both RFC2518bis becomes a 
> Draft standard and LOCKING is a Proposed standard, it will be 
> relatively simple to advance LOCKING as well).
>