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

RE: Issue: UNLOCK_WHAT_URL

From: Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@xythos.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 16:59:02 -0400
Message-ID: <27889B08CAEC7049B68FAD8717BA601736D843@ATL1VEXC006.usdom004.tco.tc>
To: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
That was the assumption I had made too.. the sentence so far reads

 

"Any locked resource may be addressed by UNLOCK, not just the resource
that the LOCK method applied to.  "

 

Lisa

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 12:10 PM
To: Julian Reschke
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: Issue: UNLOCK_WHAT_URL

 

I've changed the issue name to the one on the issue list that seems more
appropriate. See new Subject: line.

> So do we have agreement that *any* of the URIs affected by a deep lock
can
> be used to do the UNLOCK operation?


The other question of that issue is... do we agree that if you request
an UNLOCK
on a resource that is not locked by that lock, that the request should
fail? 

I believe in previous discussions it was suggested that we should not
allow one
to specify a URL other than one that is locked by the lock. The
reasoning was
that in a virtual website where the URI space might be partitioned and
delegated 
across several machines (perhaps using intermachine BIND requests), it
might be 
burdensome for all machines of the virtual website to be familiar with
all locks.

Anyway, regardless of folks believing this, I'd like to confirm that
UNLOCK requests
specifying a request URI of an unlocked resource should be rejected.

Opinions?

J.


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

 "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>



 

 

"Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Sent by: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org 

07/08/2002 07:24 AM

 

To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
cc: 
Subject: RE: root of a lock, was HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER



> To: Daniel Brotsky <dbrotsky@adobe.com>
> Cc: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> Message-ID: <OF7C4220CB.830F87EE-ON85256B41.006F0EFA@pok.ibm.com>
> From: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:19:50 -0500
> Subject: RE: root of a lock, was HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER
>
>
> > In addition to Geoff's answer:
> > If you are an administrator trying to unlock a resource obtained by
> > someone else, you have to be able to figure out which resource to
> > unlock. You can't unlock an internal member of a collection that's
> > locked by a depth-inifinity lock without knowing which collection
was
> > actually locked.
>
> CAN'T?

(going back to an old discussion...)

RFC2518, 8.11 says [1]:

"The UNLOCK method removes the lock identified by the lock token in the
Lock-Token request header from the Request-URI, and all other resources
included in the lock. If all resources which have been locked under the
submitted lock token can not be unlocked then the UNLOCK request MUST
fail.
"

So do we have agreement that *any* of the URIs affected by a deep lock
can
be used to do the UNLOCK operation?


[1] <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#METHOD_UNLOCK>






------_=_NextPart_001_01C226C2.4A261105
Content-Type: image/gif;
	name="image001.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <image001.gif@01C22687.71F99E20>
Content-Description: image001.gif
Content-Location: image001.gif

R0lGODlhEAAQAKECAMzMzAAAAP///wAAACH5BAEAAAIALAAAAAAQABAAAAIXlI+py+0PopwxUbpu
ZRfKZ2zgSJbmSRYAIf4fT3B0aW1pemVkIGJ5IFVsZWFkIFNtYXJ0U2F2ZXIhAAA7

------_=_NextPart_001_01C226C2.4A261105
Content-Type: image/gif;
	name="image002.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <image002.gif@01C22687.71F99E20>
Content-Description: image002.gif
Content-Location: image002.gif

R0lGODlhSAABAHcAMSH+GlNvZnR3YXJlOiBNaWNyb3NvZnQgT2ZmaWNlACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAAB
AAEAgAAAAAECAwICRAEAOw==

------_=_NextPart_001_01C226C2.4A261105
Content-Type: image/gif;
	name="image003.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <image003.gif@01C22687.71F99E20>
Content-Description: image003.gif
Content-Location: image003.gif

R0lGODlh4QABAHcAMSH+GlNvZnR3YXJlOiBNaWNyb3NvZnQgT2ZmaWNlACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAAB
AAEAgAAAAAECAwICRAEAOw==

------_=_NextPart_001_01C226C2.4A261105
Content-Type: image/gif;
	name="image004.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <image004.gif@01C22687.71F99E20>
Content-Description: image004.gif
Content-Location: image004.gif

R0lGODlhAQABAHcAMSH+GlNvZnR3YXJlOiBNaWNyb3NvZnQgT2ZmaWNlACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAAB
AAEAgAAAAAECAwICRAEAOw==

------_=_NextPart_001_01C226C2.4A261105--
Received on Monday, 8 July 2002 17:00:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:01 GMT