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

Re: Call for consensus on UNLOCK Request-URI being lock root

From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 11:40:15 -0400
To: Julian Reschke <nnjulian.reschke___at___gmx.de@smallcue.com>
Cc: nnw3c-dist-auth___at___w3.org@smallcue.com
Message-ID: <OF3D60E98C.F6035EA5-ON85256EC8.00552D86-85256EC8.00561722@us.ibm.com>
On Monday, 07/05/2004 at 01:16 ZE2, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Jason Crawford wrote:
> 
> > I'd relax the server side to accept refresh requests at any resource 
in
> > the scope of the lock.   Unless given a reason though, I'd still
> > encourage servers to send the refresh requests to the root of the 
lock.
> 
> I guess you mean "clients" in the second sentence.
Correct.

> The problem with this approach is that it makes little sense in a
> specification. If we say that servers SHOULD allow refresh against
> indirectly locked resources, it doesn't make sense to tell clients not
> to use it.
I think it does make sense from the perspective of flexibility, and we've 
done it before, but I don't have a strong preference.  My stronger 
preference is that we move forward. 

J.
Received on Monday, 5 July 2004 11:42:21 GMT

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