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: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:44:47 +0100
Message-ID: <41EDAD7F.4000408@gmx.de>
To: "Fay, Chuck" <CFay@filenet.com>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Fay, Chuck wrote:
> I would like to revise and expand on some wording that I introduced in
> the first sentence, to make it clearer:
> 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 particular binding expressed by the Request-URI, rather than the
> resource identified by that 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.

It keeps improving :-).

Best regards, Julian

<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 00:45:29 UTC

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