W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: locking GULP 2

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 22:35:29 -0500
Message-Id: <10001270335.AA29093@tantalum>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
   From: jamsden@us.ibm.com

   Just a couple of comments, I'm trying to catch up from a lot of travel.
   - a lock must be an 8 tuple and include the principal (authentication id)
   who owns the lock.

Where do you find this definition in rfc2518?  The activitelock element
is defined as a 3 to 6 tuple:

   <!ELEMENT activelock (lockscope, locktype, depth, owner?, timeout?,
   locktoken?) >

I have found no occurrence of the term "authentication id" in rfc2518.

   - under "A resource can be locked by multiple locks concurrently", the
   first sentence should read A resource..., not a lock...

Yup (this is fixed in GULP-3).

   - under "One or more resources may be locked with a lock request", last
   paragraph: unfortunately the owner element of a lock is not the principal
   owning the lock but rather some arbitrary string describing the owner of
   the lock like a phone number or email address, etc. That's why we need
   another field for the principal. Otherwise client applications must persist
   their lock tokens somewhere else as there's no way to retrieve them from
   the server for a given user.

If you are authenticating against the principal issuing a request,
there is no point in maintaining or requiring a lock token.  If you
are using a lock token to avoid merging between cooperating clients,
then you don't need to authenticate against a principal.  In either
case, there is no point in authenticating the use of a lock token.

And even if there would be a point, it is not specified in rfc2518,
so this would be protocol extension, not protocol compliance.

   - say you have a lock on a resource which translates to a lock on its
   segment binding in its parent collection (the one used to request the
   lock), and the resource itself.

Actually, it produces a lock on all the WebDAV collections named by
segments of the request-URL of the LOCK.

   Now you move the resource to some other
   collection. This removes the lock from the binding in the collection, but
   not the lock on the resource itself?

When you issue a move, the locks are recomputed.  In particular,
(in GULP-3) the rule is:

R5: If a collection C has a lock with token "K" and a request adds
or removes a member from C, all locks with token "K" are removed except for
those that would result from re-executing the LOCK command that
created the token "K" locks.   If any of these locks cannot be added,
the request MUST fail.

   If so, could one expect that a new
   lock would be added to destination binding so that the overall state of the
   system is the same?

In GULP, the lock is logically on the request-URL of the LOCK
request, not on any particular resource.  This logical lock is
reflected in the state of the appropriate resources, so following
a MOVE, the original LOCK request continues to be in effect on the
specified URL.

   The user started out with a protected resource and URL.
   After the move, one would expect the same level of protection?

In GULP, the user started out with a protected URL, and that is the
URL that remains protected following the MOVE.

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2000 22:35:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:53 GMT