- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:27:09 +0100
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Lisa Dusseault wrote: > > > On Nov 16, 2005, at 9:16 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> >> Lisa Dusseault wrote: >>> I agree there's a fair argument for allowing servers not to put lock >>> tokens in lockdiscovery all the time. I can clarify the text there >>> because there certainly isn't a consensus to require servers to do that. >>> We could, however, treat the LOCK (create lock) response slightly >>> differently, and require that the body contains the lockdiscovery >>> property *including* the new lock token -- a special case to handle >>> those clients that had problems at Interop tests. >> >> This does not make any sense. Sorry. >> >> It's the "Lock-Token" response header that *always* contains the >> result. Why do you insist on changing the spec so that there's a >> second mechanism? >> > Because that was the rough consensus at the Interop that year, amongst > the people there, and I don't want to overthrow that too lightly. As > soon as Cullen declares that there's a consensus for a single mechanism, > I'll edit the spec according to the consensus. Ultimately, consensus needs to be found in the WG (== the mailing list), not at a meeting. I don't recall any discussion over here about requiring the response body. Did I miss something? Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2005 17:28:27 UTC