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

Ok with me.

Am Montag, 03.03.03, um 21:31 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Clemm, Geoff:

>
> 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 Tuesday, 4 March 2003 03:33:47 UTC