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

Draft -16 out now

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:51:30 -0800
Message-Id: <5C90C7EA-9109-41FE-9F71-6CD759EE0FB6@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Cullen \"Fluffy\" Jennings" <fluffy@cisco.com>, WebDav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>

Draft -15 of RFC2518bis expired, and I knew we needed a live draft  
for any further action, so I spun up draft -16.  The major bugs to be  
fixed in this version were:
	- inconsistent use of "Lock-Token" header in an example, when the  
text requires "if" (the thread below)
	- bug in example of extending "all-prop" with "include" directive  
(bug 188 I think)

Also I went through the bugzilla issues raised since -15 (all post-WG- 
last-call).  I tried to make very conservative judgements about what  
textual/editorial improvements were clearly useful improvements and  
yet not destabilizing to the draft overall at this stage.

XML and text versions at http://ietf.osafoundation.org/xythoswfs/ 
webui/webdav/rfc2518bis until the version submitted to the Internet- 
Drafts repository goes up.

thx,
Lisa

On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

>
> By the way, I'd fix this bug in a heartbeat if I thought this would  
> get us done.  The example is inconsistent, although the  
> precondition is correct as is -- the problem is not that the lock  
> token needed to be submitted (one was), the problem is that the  
> lock token does not match the resource.
>
> But rather than make just this one change to the document,  I'm  
> waiting for somebody to help us make progress on other issues or  
> somebody to agree that other issues are closed.  Jim, maybe if  
> you're less swamped now you can review the state?
>
> Lisa
>
> On May 21, 2006, at 1:18 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> Lisa,
>>
>> thanks for the changes in draft 15. I still think that the  
>> precondition now doesn't fit anymore (it's not the Lock-Token  
>> header that was missing). Furthermore, the example is now  
>> inconsistent with the spec. Suggested changes:
>>
>> Section 9.10.6., para. 6:
>> OLD:
>>
>>     412 (Precondition Failed), with 'lock-token-matches-request-uri'
>>     precondition code - The LOCK request was made with a If header,
>>     indicating that the client wishes to refresh the given lock.
>>     However, the Request-URI did not fall within the scope of the  
>> lock
>>     identified by the token.  The lock may have a scope that does not
>>     include the Request-URI, or the lock could have disappeared,  
>> or the
>>     token may be invalid.
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>>     412 (Precondition Failed), with 'lock-token-submitted'  
>> precondition
>>     code - The LOCK request was made with an If header, indicating  
>> that
>>     the client wishes to refresh the given lock.  However, the  
>> Request-
>>     URI did not fall within the scope of the lock identified by the
>>     token.  The lock may have a scope that does not include the  
>> Request-
>>     URI, or the lock could have disappeared, or the token may be  
>> invalid.
>>
>>
>> Section 9.10.8., para. 2:
>> OLD:
>>
>>       LOCK /workspace/webdav/proposal.doc HTTP/1.1
>>       Host: example.com
>>       Timeout: Infinite, Second-4100000000
>>       Lock-Token: <urn:uuid:e71d4fae-5dec-22d6-fea5-00a0c91e6be4>
>>       Authorization: Digest username="ejw",
>>         realm="ejw@example.com", nonce="...",
>>         uri="/workspace/webdav/proposal.doc",
>>         response="...", opaque="..."
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>>       LOCK /workspace/webdav/proposal.doc HTTP/1.1
>>       Host: example.com
>>       Timeout: Infinite, Second-4100000000
>>       If: (<urn:uuid:e71d4fae-5dec-22d6-fea5-00a0c91e6be4>)
>>
>>       Authorization: Digest username="ejw",
>>         realm="ejw@example.com", nonce="...",
>>         uri="/workspace/webdav/proposal.doc",
>>         response="...", opaque="..."
>
>
Received on Sunday, 26 November 2006 18:51:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:15 GMT