- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 11:14:41 -0800
- To: "'Ron Daniel Jr.'" <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>, "'Larry Masinter'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Sounds like the proposal I made last month (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/msg00645.html). Yaron >-----Original Message----- >From: Ron Daniel Jr. [SMTP:rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov] >Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 1997 7:42 AM >To: Larry Masinter >Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org >Subject: Re: Last call: range locking > >At 03:25 AM 3/4/97 PST, Larry Masinter wrote: >>> I don't >>> see any good reason why the protocol needs to get more complicated >>> to deal with "byte range locking" when "resource locking" covers >>> it, because a "byte range" can be a "resource". > >I agree with Larry on this. If we can do locks based on URIs, then >we have the ability to identify the resource that is bytes n..m of >some other resource and lock it. Maybe I've just missed them, but I >haven't seen any real arguments on why this is insufficient and why >the only good way to implement this functionality is to make it a part >of some special protocol, such as a new LOCKRANGE method for HTTP. > >Regards, > >Ron Daniel Jr. voice:+1 505 665 0597 >Advanced Computing Lab fax:+1 505 665 4939 >MS B287 email:rdaniel@lanl.gov >Los Alamos National Lab http://www.acl.lanl.gov/~rdaniel >Los Alamos, NM, USA, 87545 >
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 1997 14:16:28 UTC