W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: 2518bis-14 feedback

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:36:56 +0100
Message-ID: <44020358.408@gmx.de>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org


thanks for the feedback. I've added all editorial issues to 
hoping that the document editor will take advantage of that compliation.

Once issue deserves special comment:

> 7.7 para two; the MUST requirement is confusing; is it a requirement on 
> client or server? The "use" of the request is something which is 
> controlled by the client, but this is a requirement concerning the 
> *interpretation* of the request, which is controlled by the server?
> The 7.7 para one MUST requirement seems redundant too really.  If a 
> client chooses to submit an identical LOCK request twice, then the model 
> already specifies server behaviour.

I think that actually the whole section should be removed. It's a mix of 
incorrect and confusing stuff, and normative statements that just 
duplicate what has been said before. There simply is no reason to 
mention lock refresh again in the context of write locks, because it's 
the same for every kind of lock. Having that section there is just 
confusing (see also 

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 26 February 2006 19:38:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:35 UTC