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

Re: Issues remaining with Bind draft

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:10:04 -0800
Message-Id: <E80FC418-7C3C-11D8-BB68-000A95B2BB72@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

This is definitely an improvement.  However, I still  have some issues 
-- the interaction between bindings and locks is still unclear.  The 
spec needs to clearly say that
  - if one binding is locked, then every binding is locked (with the 
same lock token)
  - All bindings to the same resource MUST support the same features 
(e.g. locking)
  - All bindings to the same resource MUST show the same values for live 
properties defined in RFC2518, RFC3253, RFC3648 and the ACL RFC.

Unless my understanding of the intent is wrong...?  In which case, it 
needs to clarify some other way.

Lisa

On Mar 20, 2004, at 2:14 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
>
>> How about for REBIND:
>> (DAV:lock-deleted): If the URL specified in the DAV:href element in 
>> the request body was protected by a write-lock at the time of the 
>> request, that write-lock must have been deleted by the request.
>> And something similar for UNBIND.
>
> OK, here's the change:
>
> UNBIND postcondition:
>
>       (DAV:lock-deleted): If the internal member URI of the binding
>       specified by the Request-URI and the DAV:segment element in the
>       request body was protected by a write-lock at the time of the
>       request, that write-lock must have been deleted by the request.
>
> REBIND postcondition:
>
>       (DAV:lock-deleted): If the URL specified in the DAV:href element
>       in the request body was protected by a write-lock at the time of
>       the request, that write-lock must have been deleted by the
>       request.
>
> (note that for UNBIND the actual URI is composed from request-URI and 
> DAV:segment in the request body).
>
>
> From Geoff's and my point of view, we have now resolved those issues 
> raised by Lisa which indeed warranted a document change. As these 
> changes are minor, we *could* proceed with draft 04 as base for the 
> working group last call, but of course I can also produce a -05 draft 
> early next week and submit that (Opinions?).
>
> Regards, Julian
>
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 15:12:16 UTC

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