Subject: Re (2): summary of BIND/RFC2518 status

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 22:31:00 +0200 (MEST)

Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Geoff and I have volunteered to author a standalone WebDAV Locking 
> specification
Thanks, please do 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.
+ 1

Cheers, Edgar

---

From: Bob Denny <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 20:55:51 -0700

> [...]
> [... etc.]

Thank Heaven. As an observer, this was going in a terrible direction.

In fact, it seems that DAV gets increasingly complex all the time, without
apparent convergence. Furthermore, the server-side implementations outside
Apache appear to be withering away. As such it seems less like a W3C
standard and more like a private protocol for special purposes, owned by
the Apache working group and a few client vendors who implemented it.

Is WebDAV really a standard? I think not.

  -- Bob  (DAV observer for 4+ years, and someone who implemented 2+
           years ago, only to be met with deafening silence from
           customers)

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 08:33:24 +0200

> Thank Heaven. As an observer, this was going in a terrible direction.

I take that as agreement that locking should be moved into a separate 
document, instead of having advanced protocols (such as BIND) having to 
extend/fix RFC2518's definition of locks?

> Is WebDAV really a standard? I think not.

Well, it's a proposed standard, and many many clients and servers are 
using it. It's somehow "beyond hype", but that's not necessarily bad.

>            years ago, only to be met with deafening silence from

Our customers definitively use WebDAV intensively, be it for editing 
using Microsoft Office, for mass import/export, or as transport protocol 
for interconnecting separate servers.

Thanks for the feedback,

Julian

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