RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER

What I would find most useful would be a lock owner field with a value
defined by the server.  Since the server is likely to have authenticated the
user, they presumably know how to identify the user.  Existing support for
the ACLs spec would mean that a Principal URL could be available.  Allowing
the server to set this value means that the information is more reliable.

Lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:28 AM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> Subject: RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER
>
>
> I would describe our conclusion as:
>
> We need to define a new field, say DAV:lockowner, that is specified
> in a LOCK request, and that takes an XML value.  We will define
> some standard elements for that value.
>
> We should then deprecate the use of the DAV:owner field, as a field
> that contains non-interoperable data about the lock owner.
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:35 PM
> To: Daniel Brotsky; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org; Lisa Dusseault
> Subject: RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER
>
>
>
> It sounds like we've concluded that we can't reuse the lockowner field
> because we've already specified that it's free text.
>
> Do we still have the requirement mentioned at...
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2001JulSep/0218.html
> says...
>
> regarding identifying the owner of a lock?  If so, now that we've had some
> discussion on this topic, can someone provide an improved
> definition of the
> requirement?    And a proposal?  Dan?  Lisa? Geoff?  Julian?
>
> J.
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Phone: 914-784-7569,   ccjason@us.ibm.com
>

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 00:23:36 UTC