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

Re: Resolve Issue 67 UNLOCK_NEEDS_IF_HEADER

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 06:55:10 -0400
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3B62113C.7D0A4733-ON85256EB4.003BB79B-85256EB4.003C04D2@us.ibm.com>
And if the facts on the ground weren't enough, it doesn't
make sense anyway, because any authorized user should be
able to remove a lock (to allow the removal of a lock when
the client owning the lock no longer exists or is misbehaving).

So I concur that this issue should be marked resolved,
with no action.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 06/15/2004 03:05:09 AM:
>
> this issue (<http://www.webdav.org/wg/rfcdev/issues.htm>) reads:
> 
> "Shouldn’t we be using an IF header to do an UNLOCK seeing as you need 
> to prove you are holding a lock before you can remove it?  (This might 
> be contingent on LOCKS_SHOULD_THEY_USE_AN_IF_HEADER_TO_VERIFY)"
> 
> The tests that I have done (for other UNLOCK related issues) show that 
> servers indeed use the "Lock-Token" request header to indicate the lock 
> to be removed; and that they do not require an additional "If" header. 
> This may have been a valid point before the spec was finished, but now 
> as we're talking about progressing/clarifying the protocol, we should 
> just reject that issue.
> 
> Jason, can you please update the issues list? I'll update 
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-locking-

> latest.html#rfc.issue.067_UNLOCK_NEEDS_IF_HEADER> 
> accordingly.


Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2004 06:56:10 GMT

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