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


From: Daniel Brotsky <dbrotsky@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 08:54:33 -0800
Message-Id: <p05101204b8773ba79f39@[]>
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
(Sorry for the delay in this reply; I've been away from mail for a week.)

At 2:28 PM -0500 1/18/02, Clemm, Geoff wrote:
>I would describe our conclusion as:

Yow.  Unfortunately I would describe it in almost opposite terms...

>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.

I would have said our conclusion was:

We need to define a new XML-valued field, say DAV:lockowner, that is 
owned by the server and returned as part of lockdiscovery.  We will 
define some standard elements for that value which the server can use 
to reveal as much or as little as it wants about:

- the principal owning the lock (e.g., a "login name")
- the relationship between the owning principal and the requesting 
principal (e.g., requestor is/is not the owner)
- the capabilities of the requestor with respect to the lock (e.g., 
requestor has/has not the same capabilities as the owner; requestor 
has/has not the ability to use or unlock the lock).

>We should then deprecate the use of the DAV:owner field, as a field
>that contains non-interoperable data about the lock owner.

I would have said:

We then need to explicitly reserve the use of the DAV:owner field to 
be for clients to use at lock request time (in order to provide for 
client-to-client conventional communication).  We need to forbid 
servers from rewriting the client-specified value (other than 
clarifying that the DAV:owner field is XML-valued, and thus subject 
to parsing/regeneration by the server).

We then need to resolve the issue about whether the client can 
rewrite the lock:owner field as part of a lock refresh request.  (I 
believe this was an outstanding issue as to whether clients can 
change any aspect of a lock in a refresh request.)  I would recommend 
that clients be able to do this.


>-----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
>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
>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?
>Phone: 914-784-7569,   ccjason@us.ibm.com

Daniel Brotsky, Adobe Systems
tel 408-536-4150, pager 877-704-4062
2-way pager email: <mailto:page-dbrotsky@adobe.com>
Received on Friday, 25 January 2002 19:47:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:24 UTC