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

RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:23:20 -0800
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <HPELJFCBPHIPBEJDHKGKIEGNDEAA.lisa@xythos.com>
As you point out, the DAV:owner field affects client/client
interoperability.  There exist shipping clients that have established
interoperability based on specific syntax and information in the DAV:owner
field.  Therefore, we cannot now develop a standard format for that field
without breaking those clients.  Since DAV:owner was standardized as free
text, we can't restrict it further.

We can however create a new field that when supported uses a standard
syntax.

Lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 7:44 AM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> Subject: RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER
>
>
> Developing a standard format for the DAV:owner field would
> be fine with me.  This addresses the client/client interoperability
> problem without introducing the overhead and security hole
> that capturing and displaying a "principal" introduces.
> The ability to submit "bogus" information is a security feature,
> not a bug.
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
>
> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 8:26 PM
> > To: Clemm, Geoff; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> > Subject: RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER
> >
> > ...
> >
> > No, this info is not necessarily available in the DAV:owner
> > field.  Because
> > the client can submit this field, the client can submit bogus
> information,
> > and it's not necessarily possible for the server to decide if the
> > information is bogus.
>
> Furthermore, there is no standard format for this information, but this
> would be needed for a interoperability.
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2002 17:25:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:59 GMT