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


From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:41:37 -0800
To: "Daniel Brotsky" <dbrotsky@adobe.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> Bottom line: At this point, I think our two points of consensus are:
> 1. DAV:owner is owned by clients, and the spec should say this.
> 2. We are not going to add a way for clients to ask who owns a lock.
> I would suggest we close out this issue on that consensus.  I have no
> objection to adding an issue about adding a DAV:lockowner field
> (based on Julian's proposal), but I have not seen any evidence that
> actual clients are asking for this; it seems to be more of a hygiene
> issue than anything else.

I should also make it clear that there are two possible ways to add a
feature like DAV:lockowner:
(a) Add it to the base DAV spec when we rewrite it to go to Draft Standard.
Then we would be delayed getting an RFC number with Draft Standard until we
prove interoperability with DAV:lockowner

(b) Add it to a DAV extension.

When it comes to adding features, I much prefer (b).  We can delete and
disambiguate features in RFC2518 and move toward Draft Standard status
quickly, based on much existing proven interoperability.  We cannot add
features with the same speed because it requires us to wait for product
implementors to get around to doing the new feature.

So my position is pretty similar to Dan's: make it clear that DAV:owner is
owned by clients, and don't add any way for servers to insert lock owner
principal information.  I prefer any other extensions to DAV to be done
outside the base spec since they are clearly not needed for basic
interoperability and would delay Draft Standard.

Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 19:43:42 UTC

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