W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: [Bug 2] Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings in teract with locks.

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:37:15 +0100
Message-ID: <41ED656B.4090801@gmx.de>
CC: webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> I agree that it would be desireable to add the statement Joe suggests
> to the binding specification, and I like the editorial changes suggested
> by Chuck and Julian.
> Cheers,
> Geoff


so do we have consensus to add the following subsection to section 2 

2.x UNLOCK and Bindings

Due to the specific language used in section 8.11 of [RFC2518], it might 
be thought that an UNLOCK request to a locked resource would unlock just 
the binding of the Request-URI.  This is not the case, however.  Section 
6 of [RFC2518] clearly states that locks are on resources, not URIs, so 
the server MUST allow UNLOCK to be used to unlock a locked resource 
through any binding to that resource.  The authors of this specification 
anticipate and recommend that future revisions of [RFC2518] maintain 
this behavior.

Best regards, Julian

<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 19:37:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:31 UTC