W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: unlock question

From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:37:11 -0500
To: "Dan Brotsky" <dbrotsky@Adobe.COM>
Cc: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD12F97C7.8C2BD053-ON85256A03.0071F724@pok.ibm.com>



> 1. Does UNLOCK require IF header specifying applicable write lock token?

I've tentitively added this as...UNLOCK_NEEDS_IF_HEADER

I believe that the current behavior is appropriate in that the only thing
the server needs to verify is that the client is aware of that lock and the
requestor is the principal that owns it.  If the client is explicitly
requesting that the lock be destroyed, the client obviously knows about the
lock and it's redundant to ask them to provide it in a second header.  I
think we need to treat the IF header not as a way for the server to confirm
that the client knows about a lock, but (as documented) a way for a client
to put a precondition on an request.   If you look at the documentation for
the IF header, this is the only thing it talks about.  And if the server
needs to verify that a client knows about a lock, it should be adequate for
the client to mention the lock in a any documented headers that we
enumerate to verify that the client knows about the lock.

> 2. UNLOCK should return 412 if valid lock token is not supplied as
> UNLOCK-TOKEN.

I've tentatively added this as...UNLOCK_WITHOUT_GOOD_TOKEN

J.
Received on Friday, 2 March 2001 16:42:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:55 GMT