Binding Protocol Conference Call Minutes
February 2, 2000

Present: Geoff Clemm, Judy Slein, Kevin Wiggen, Jason Crawford, Jim Whitehead

Minutes recorded by Jim Whitehead

*** Note that decisions made during the teleconference are always
subject to review on the mailing list.  The mailing list is the final
arbiter of consensus on any issue.  Note also, that the revised
Bindings Protocol specification produced as a result of this
conference call will also be subject to review by the mailing
list. ***

We will march through the issues in order (from the issues list Judy
put together).

Issue #1 (Weak bindings): Short answer: no weak bindings.  Some
rationale: We have discussed, and rejected this opion before.  A
strong bindings spec. stands on its own, while weak bindings need
strong bindings.  Also, redirect references give you some of the
functionalty of weak bindings.

Issue #2 (Security and DAVbindings property): No matter how we decide
this issue, will still need to discuss this issue in the security
considerations section.  Agreement that this sounds like a server
implementation policy issue, and hence should not be turned into a
normative requirement.  However, language should be added to the
spec., in the Security Considerations section, stating that this
policy can be implemented by servers.

Issue #3 (DAV:resourceid for versioned resources): Language addressing
this issue has been added to the Delta-V versioning protocol
specification, and hence will not be addressed in the bindings
protocol.

Issue #4 (PublishBind): Will not explicitly reference the other
advanced collection specs., esp. Ordered Collections, but will mention
that Redirect References, which do not have strong integrity, are
defined in another specification (without directly referencing that
spec.)

Issue #5 (We Screwed Up): We will move this text to the appendix, and
comb through the text for mentions of internal member URIs.

Issue #6 (4Huh?): Agreement that section 4 will be deleted.
Paragraphs within section 4 that introduce new material will be rolled
into either the Introduction, or the terminology section. This means
that the first paragraph will be deleted, and the other paragraphs
will be moved. Paragraph on "bindings are not unique to advanced
collections" --> move to introduction. Paragraphs 3 & 4 are moved to a
new section on integrity of bindings.

Also agreed that there should be a new section explicitly addressing
integrity of bindings.

Issue #7 (5.3 Huh?): Agreed to take a stab at writing it in set
notation.  Geoff bravely volunteered for this task.  Will revisit this
section once it has been converted into set notation.

Issue #8 (5.4Huh): If you don't understand 5.3, won't understand this
either. Revisit once 5.3 is rewritten.

Issue #9 (507): Agreed to use 403 instead of 507 and reword to just be
generically that the binding was refused, and to create a new 4xx code
for the loop forbidden condition. (This addresses issue #15)

Issue #10 (2616Insulting): We will delete the last three sentences of
first paragraph of section 6, and accept Roy Fielding's wording
suggestion for replacement text.

Issue #11 (AtomicDelete): Discussed, but did not come to any
conclusions.  Agreed to invite Yaron to a future conference call to
further discuss this issue.

Issue #12 (AtomicMove): Tentatively agreed that move should be atomic.

Geoff Clemm left the conference call at this point.

Issue #13 (NoSlash): No agreement.

Issue #14 (BindSyntax): Agreement that we will revert back to the
previous syntax for Bind, used in either the -00 or the -01 version of
the spec.

Issue #15 was handled above in Issue #9.

Issue #16 (ApplePie): Agreed to delete this sentence ("After
successful ...").

Issue #17 (ApplePieToo): Agreed that we want feedback from the list on
the two suggestions given in Judy's post of Jan 19:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2000JanMar/0109.html

Issue #18 (ApplePie3): Agreed to accept a close variation of Yaron's
proposed language. Also agreed not to mention anything about weak
bindings, since they are an abstraction not defined in this
specification.  May also have to change the definition of the
dav:bindings property (need to check this).

Issue #23: (Don't paginate): We will continue to follow IETF procedure
and paginate.  We will endeavor to produce an alternative, nicely
formatted version of the draft for review as well.

*** End of teleconference ***