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

RE: Bindings and GULP again

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:25:58 -0500
To: "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <OFA0B9E0AD.688D270F-ON85256E0B.007BBEB2-85256E0C.0012D423@us.ibm.com>

Lisa wrote on 11/20/2003 03:31:36 PM:

> > >> In RFC2518bis, a lock token is submitted if it appears anywhere in 
> > >> the if header, I think. [...]
> > 
> > Julian wrote:
> > 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.

There are a couple of ways to go here:
(1) consider a lock token to be submitted if it is submitted with a
    URL that is directly or indirectly locked by that lock token
(2) consider a lock token to be submitted if it appears anywhere in
    the If header, even if it only appears on a URL that is not in
    fact locked by that lock.

Lisa's initial statement sounded like she was advocating the
second approach, but her last statement sounds more like the
first approach.  On the other hand, the last comment ("Otherwise
you'd get a 412 Precondition Failed") is incorrect, since only
one of the state lists need to match.

Either way is OK with me (although I'd probably have gone with
the first approach myself), but I just wanted to verify what
folks had in mind here.

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Monday, 29 December 2003 22:26:02 GMT

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