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

RE: Comments on bind-08

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cs.ucsc.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 13:45:04 -0800
Message-Id: <200412022145.iB2LjCbP015098@cats-mx1.ucsc.edu>
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'WebDAV \(WebDAV WG\)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

 
> 
> REBIND /CollW HTTP/1.1
> If: <http://example.com/CollW/CollY/CollZ> (<L3>) 
> <http://example.com/CollW/CollX> (<L2>)
> Overwrite: T
> 
> <rebind xmlns="DAV:">
>    <segment>CollX</segment>
>    <href>/CollW/CollY/CollZ</href>
> </rebind>
> 
> Reason: we need to supply both lock tokens as we're removing 
> a binding 
> to C3 that is protected by the lock L3, and we're removing the target 
> binding /CollW/CollY which is protected by the lock L2.

This doesn't sound right to me. I'd say that we're removing the binding
C3:(CollZ->C1), and hence we need the lock token L3. We're then creating the
binding C3:(CollZ->C2), which requires the lock tokens L3 and L2, since C3's
state is being modified (hence L3), and C2 is the destination (hence L2).
I'm pretty confident of all except the final statement.

> we're removing the target 
> binding /CollW/CollY which is protected by the lock L2.

Isn't binding /CollW/CollY/ -- that is, C1:(CollY->C3) -- covered by lock
L3?

- Jim
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2004 21:46:20 UTC

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