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

Re: LOCKS_SHOULD_THEY_USE_AN_IF_HEADER_TO_VERIFY vs RFC2518bis-05

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 16:37:02 +0200
Message-ID: <40BDE60E.1040400@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, nnw3c-dist-auth___at___w3.org@smallcue.com

Julian Reschke wrote:

> IMHO the only thing we should say is that LOCK without a request body 
> *with* an If header will refresh all locks on the resource identified by 
> the request URI (possibly deprecating the use of the Time-Out request 
> header here -- I don't think there's a strong use case for changing the 
> timeout after the lock already exists; and as far as I know existing 
> servers do not support it anyway).

Make that... "...will refresh all locks on the resource identified by 
the request URI that have been submitted in the 'If' header..."

Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2004 10:37:23 GMT

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