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

RE: rfc2518 issue: DEFER_LOCK_NULL_RESOURCES_IN_SPEC

From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:24:04 +0200
To: "Keith Wannamaker" <Keith@Wannamaker.org>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBKJABLJNMLJELONBKAEEMCPAA.stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Keith Wannamaker
> 
> | The current implementations have demonstrated that lock null resources
> | are not a basis for interoperability.
> 
> This statement has been mentioned several times, in one form or
> another, in this thread.  Do you have documentation or test cases
> for these interoperability problems?

One example is Microsoft IIS which does not implement lock-null resources
as specified in 2518. E.g. MKCOL will not work and lock-null resources
will not disappear after lock timeout.

> When I did the initial locknull implementation for mod_dav, it seemed
> to me that the notion of a lock-null resource as presented in 2518
> was very clear and logical.  On what have implementors disagreed?

mod_dav is an excellent implementation.
 
> It seems to me that we gain more from the work already done and
> implemented to clarify, if needed, rather than abandon.
> 

The point made is that the specified behaviour might not be worth
the effort. Limiting the lock-null requirements could result in
making (server) implementations easier without giving up any
functionality. The benefit for clients would be that more servers
will comply to the spec.

//Stefan
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2001 04:24:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:56 GMT