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: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:48:15 -0800
Message-Id: <A86D8B38-699A-11D9-A835-000A95AACED2@xythos.com>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Seems like good text to add.

-brian
briank@xythos.com


On Jan 18, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Ok,
>
> so do we have consensus to add the following subsection to section 2  
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind- 
> latest.html#overview.of.bindings>)?
>
>
> 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 21:48:50 GMT

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