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

Re: Depth header in a lock refreshing method

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:32:11 +0100
Message-ID: <3FF2CFDB.10200@gmx.de>
To: Stanley Guan <stanley.guan@oracle.com>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Stanley Guan wrote:

> Under the topic of "Refreshing Locks", it hints that
> Client may include a Timeout header. But, Depth header
> has not being mentioned.
> Under the topic of "Depth and Locking", it discussed
> what will happen if "Depth" header is specified for
> creating a new lock.  But, nothing was mentioned on
> what's its implication on a lock refreshing command.
> Should "bis" document clarify this?


In general, methods should ignore unknown headers. In this particular 
case of course, the Depth header *is* used for LOCK (just only when 
creating new locks).

So the options for LOCK refresh are:

1) server MUST respect Depth header, possibly changing the lock scope
2) server MAY respect Depth header, possibly changing the lock scope
3) server SHOULD ignore Depth header
4) server MUST ignore Depth header

As 4) is what currently everybody seems to implement, I'd propose to 
choose that interpretration and clarify in RFC2518bis.


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2003 08:32:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:28 UTC