W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Remaining issues with the bind draft -- process

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:58:22 -0700
Message-Id: <97D2D91C-873B-11D8-970E-000A95B2BB72@xythos.com>
Cc: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>


On Apr 5, 2004, at 11:55 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:

>
> Julian wrote:
>
>> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>>
>>> I've re-reviewed the bind draft. Many of these issues have come up
>>> before but I feel they haven't been resolved in the draft.
>>>
>>> General
>>> -----------
>>>
>>> The spec must stand alone, not be dependent on changes to RFC2518 in
>>> 'bis'. Otherwise, bind can't be approved until RFC2518bis is 
>>> approved.
>>> That means no dependencies for things like 'lockroot'.
>>
>> There isn't any.
>
> Lisa, was your reference to 'lockroot' a pointer to one such reference 
> which exists, or something which is added to 2518bis which you point 
> out is not allowed to be used in the bind draft?

In this discussion, I asked whether a user can UNLOCK a binding that 
wasn't
the binding where the LOCK was issued (these are both bindings to the 
same
resource).  One of the email answers was that the client software could 
always
use the "lockroot" element in the lock information to discover which 
URI was
locked and thus they could find out which one to unlock.

I find that answer unacceptable for two reasons.  First, 'lockroot' 
isn't standardized -- it's
only a proposed extension to WebDAV/RFC2518, and not all servers 
implementing
bindings must implement this proposed extension.   Second, it doesn't 
answer the
question of how server implementations of bindings MUST behave.

Lisa
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 15:59:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:06 GMT