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

Re: Resolving other open BIND issues?

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 11:44:07 -0500
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7E88CAFD.45BECCA8-ON85256E51.005B68CC-85256E51.005BF11F@us.ibm.com>

I agree that this is the appropriate resolution of this issue.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 03/06/2004 03:11:08 PM:
> ...
> The only other issue I'm sort-of aware of is Lisa Duseault's concern 
> about locking semantics when multiple bindings exist to a locked 
> resource, voiced during the Seoul meeting (transcript at [3]).
> 
> IMHO this was dicussed here before, and the answer simply is that these 
> concerns are invalid. A WebDAV lock both locks the resource (directly) 
> and protects it's URI (indirectly). Given two bindings "a" and "b" to 
> the same resource, you can't use "b" to modify it after it has been 
> locked through "a" (because it's the resource that is locked). However 
> you *may* DELETE or MOVE "b" (because that binding is not protected by 
> the lock requested on "a").
> 
> This is the locking behaviour described in RFC2518, and clarified im 
> GULP [4].
> 
> Note that multiple bindings to the same resource can exist independantly 

> of the BIND spec (for instance as result of DeltaV operations). All the 
> BIND spec adds is
> 
> - clarifying discovery of bindings
> - clarify behaviour of bindings in face of namespace operations, incl 
> error handling
> - adding explicit operations to create new bindings
> 
> As the question seems to be re-raised every few months, I'll now add it 
> (as "resolved") to the document's issues list.
Received on Monday, 8 March 2004 11:44:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:51 UTC