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

RE: Bindings and GULP again

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:31:36 -0800
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Stefan Eissing'" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Cc: "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <027101c3afa5$4b88b160$75c990c6@lisalap>

> Stefan Eissing wrote:
> 
> >> In RFC2518bis, a lock token is submitted if it appears anywhere in 
> >> the if header, I think. [...]
> > 
> > 
> > I agree to that view on submitted lock-tokens. In this, 
> GULP needs a 
> > simplification.
> 
> Clarification: I confused "being submitted for LOCK 
> evaluation" with the 
> If header handling. So yes, GULP should state that a lock token is 
> submitted when it appears in the If header at all.
> 
> However, this doesn't mean that for "If" header processing, 
> lock tokens 
> can be supplied un-tagged or with the wrong URI. I'm mentioning this 
> because that would be a change from RFC2518, and I don't think we've 
> reached consensus on that.

No problem here, we all agree that lock tokens must be tagged with
the right URI (or untagged). Otherwise you'd get 412 Precondition 
Failed.  This hasn't changed in RFC2518bis, but if the language is
unclear I'm happy to take a look.

Lisa
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2003 15:31:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT