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

Re: [Bug 23] lock discovery vs shared locks

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:37:25 -0800
Message-Id: <936d754fe084c6542e6ccabfcf928533@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
That works for me.  If others agree I can try to write up text.

Lisa

On Nov 18, 2005, at 9:31 AM, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:

>
> From a lock privacy perspective, putting all information about the
> newly created lock in the lockdiscovery response to a LOCK
> request is (of course) no problem, so requiring that is fine with me.
>
> Perhaps the new text could require that full information about a LOCK
> be returned in the lockdiscovery response to a LOCK, while information
> about other locks is optional in the lockdiscovery response to a LOCK.
>
> Cheers,
>  Geoff
>
> Julian wrote on 11/18/2005 12:06:21 PM:
>  >
>  > Geoff, any input about how a server concerned with the privacy of 
> lock
>  > information would return the actual timeout value (as compared to 
> the
>  > one sent by the client)?
Received on Friday, 18 November 2005 17:37:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:11 GMT