W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:31:56 -0500
Message-ID: <E4F2D33B98DF7E4880884B9F0E6FDEE25ED6C8@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

OK, since the bind protocol only introduces one
new method, with simple behavior in the presence of
locks, I'm happy to add the appropriate precondition
to the BIND definition.  In particular, I propose to
add the following precondition:

(DAV:locked-update-allowed): if the collection identified by the Request-URL
is write-locked, then the appropriate token MUST be specified in an If
request header.

Anyone object to this addition?

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Korver [mailto:briank@xythos.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 1:57 PM
To: WebDAV
Subject: Re: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)



On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 06:27  AM, Clemm, Geoff wrote:
>    Bindings and Locks
>
>    The relationship between bindings and locks is missing
>    from the draft.  I think the behavior of locks and the
>    lock methods should be fully specified in this draft.
>
> RFC2518bis is in the process of finalizing the behavior of
> locks, and we do not want the bind draft to say anything that
> conflicts with this.  Instead, we will make sure that the
> locking model in RFC2518bis clearly defines locking behavior
> in the presence of multiple bindings.

It probably isn't a good idea to introduce a dependency
such as this, especially since 2518bis doesn't have any
notion of bindings.  I don't believe that the binding
document can move forward.

-brian
briank@xythos.com
Received on Monday, 3 March 2003 15:32:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:02 GMT