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

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

From: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:01:28 -0800
Message-ID: <41ED6B18.9080500@cse.ucsc.edu>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Julian Reschke wrote:

> Ok,  so do we have consensus to add the following [...]?

I've been considering the various options suggested to address this 
issue since it was raised, along with the various implications. For the 
record, I don't have any problem with the suggested language (below) 
being added to the BIND specification as it seems to address Lisas' 
concerns, while leaving the actual locking behavior specified in the 
core WebDAV specification.

For future reference, I would also like to see similar clarification / 
specification of locking behavior in the presence of multiple bindings 
to a resource appear in either 2518bis or a separate locking 
specification. My preference, once again, is for locking to be broken 
out into a separate specification, as suggested and discussed previously 
on this list. I believe that there was /rough concensus/ on that 
approach the last time it came up.


Cheers,
Elias
_________________________

> 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. 
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 20:01:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:07 GMT