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

RE: rfc2518 issue: DEFER_LOCK_NULL_RESOURCES_IN_SPEC

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 12:33:05 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B103DED629@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I think that adding 201 to the list of status codes returned by
LOCK is the right approach.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 3:12 PM
To: Lisa Dusseault
Cc: Clemm, Geoff; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: RE: rfc2518 issue: DEFER_LOCK_NULL_RESOURCES_IN_SPEC





It sounds like we all agree with Geoff's wording.

Lisa did make an interesting observation below though.

<<
This means that LOCK can return 201, which is important to distingusih
between LOCK of an unmapped URL (I can go ahead and put my content) and
LOCK
of URL that somebody else just created (I should NOT send my content before
checking).
>>

Do we want to enhance Geoff's explanation or add a comment along the lines
of Lisa's observation?   Or just make sure we mention 201 where we list
potential error codes for LOCK requests?

J.
Received on Friday, 10 August 2001 12:24:07 GMT

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