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

RE: Behavior of PUT on unlocked resource with invalid IF header . ..

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:51:33 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B103F8AB4D@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org

   From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com]

   My opinion is that...

   The spec should not use the IF header for token presentation to the
   server.  The IF header should only be used for client initiated
   assertion checking.  The current use of IF for dual purposes just
   causes confusion (like I think your note indicates) and impedes our
   ability to potentially extend it later.  We should transition to
   some other header for token presentation to the server.  Or perhaps
   I just misunderstand the IF header and someone needs to clearly
   define it.  :-)

Jason: I don't see your concern here.  The semantics of the If header
is quite clearly defined in 2518, and says that if none of the
state lists that apply to a resource match, then the request must
fail with a 412.  Although as indicated in a previous message, the
"applies to a resource" is not well defined for no-tagged state lists,
this is a general problem with the If header, and not a particular
problem for lock tokens.

Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2001 17:53:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:23 UTC