RE: rfc2518 issue: LOCK_REFRESH_BY_METHODS

Agreed with Geoff.

We never liked the statement anyway :-) (could be abused too easily for a
start).

Shaun Hall
Xerox Europe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 18 August 2001 20:05
> To: WebDAV (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: rfc2518 issue: LOCK_REFRESH_BY_METHODS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again.  I'd like at least one more supportive comment before 
> I file this
> one as resolved.    Please pipe up.  :-)
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> I'd just delete the paragraph in 9.8 that states:
> 
>    The timeout counter SHOULD be restarted any time an owner 
> of the lock
>    sends a method to any member of the lock, including unsupported
>    methods, or methods which are unsuccessful.  However the 
> lock MUST be
>    refreshed if a refresh LOCK method is successfully received.
> 
> The last sentence is redundant, since it is already specified in the
> LOCK semantics.
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>