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

Re: GULP vs RFC251bis, was: [Bug 54] Locks vs multiple bindings

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:42:13 +0100
Message-ID: <43A31895.9090205@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
During today's teleconference, we came across another disagreement, 
where it was questioned that GULP's [1] statement about URLs being 
protected by a LOCK:

" - If a request causes a directly locked resource to no longer be
     mapped to the lock-root of that lock, then the request MUST
     fail unless the lock-token for that lock is submitted in the
     request.  If the request succeeds, then that lock MUST have been
     deleted by that request."

indeed reflects what servers do.

I just tested a MOVE on a collection containing one locked child 
resource, and 4 out of 4 tested servers (Xythos, Apache, MS IIS 5.1, SAP 
KM) rejected the request. All except IIS returned a 423 (IIS returned a 
207 with a 423 status contained).

Thus I'll conclude that GULP here indeed describes what servers do (test 
case attached).

We can probably go on like this for a long time, but at this point I 
don't see any way to make progress here unless those who dislike GULP 
come up with concrete examples of where it fails to describe running 
code, and then optimally make suggestions about how to fix this.

Best regards, Julian


[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005OctDec/1003.html>


Received on Friday, 16 December 2005 19:44:23 GMT

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