W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: New RFC2518bis draft, LOCK_REFRESH_BY_METHODS

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:27:40 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B103F8B301@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
Yes, I agree that is better.
 
Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:ldusseault@xythos.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:46 PM
To: Jason Crawford
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
Subject: RE: New RFC2518bis draft, LOCK_REFRESH_BY_METHODS



I'm not so sure about the wording you suggest. It drops the requirement that
the lock MUST be refreshed if a refresh LOCk method is successful.  How
about this:

 

"The timeout counter MUST be restarted if a refresh LOCK request is
successful.  The timeout counter SHOULD NOT be restarted at any other time."

 

Lisa

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 8:25 AM
To: Lisa Dusseault
Cc: Webdav WG (E-mail)
Subject: Re: New RFC2518bis draft, LOCK_REFRESH_BY_METHODS

 

The current wording is difficult to understand. I'd suggest that the wording
be changed from...

The timeout counter SHOULD NOT 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.

To simply say...

The timeout counter SHOULD only be restarted if a refresh LOCK method is
successfully received.

If you like, we can mention that this is a change from 2518.

------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 13:28:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:00 GMT