Subject: [Bug 217] GULP integration

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 12:18:58 -0800

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217

------- Additional Comments From [email-masked]  2006-02-08 12:18 -------
Discussed during the Feb. 8 2006 teleconference"

Section 6.1., para. 3:

Agreed to change resource to URL.

Section 6.1., para. 9:

Agreed that the new text is better, since the information about it applying to a
specific resource is already covered in the UNLOCK method definition.

Section 6.2., para. 2:

No change needed here. Potential ambiguity noted. However, changesd in the next
section address the ambiguity.

Section 6.2., para. 7:

Already entered in a suggested text change, see above.

Section 6.4., para. 1:

Agreed that use of the usage was imprecise, and that the text needs to refer to
the DAV:unlock privilege in the ACL specification.

Section 6.4., para. 2:

Already entered in suggested text, see above.

Section 6.5., para. 1:

Agreed that the general definition of a state token belongs in the definition
section. Also agreed that we need to be consistent with whether a state token is
a URI, or is represented by a URI. Then, need to change text to refer to the
definition, and not redefine state token elsewhere in the draft.

Section 6.5., para. 4:

Lisa will work on this paragraph. In particular, there should be a statement
someplace that having a write lock does not necessarily mean you have dav:write
priveleges. It's possible to get a write lock, and not have dav:write privelege.
These are distinct. This statement may or may not belong in this paragraph.

Section 6.6., para. 2:

Julian was assigned the issue of creating a new bug for this issue.
There was disagreement over how and whether to create a more optimal
organization for the Timeout information.

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.