- From: Tim Ellison <tim@peir.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:20:53 +0100
- To: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
I don't know how you could add this to the spec, since it would require using language about 'client identity' that we don't have. I think this is a clear case for _not_ stating something that we _don't_ do. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: 16 June 2001 17:24 > To: Clemm, Geoff; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > Subject: RE: Should CHECKOUT support a TIMEOUT? > > > I would like to see this pointed out explicitly in the spec (does not need > to be normative though), rather than have the behaviour left to > be induced. > > lisa > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 2:51 PM > > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > > Subject: RE: Should CHECKOUT support a TIMEOUT? > > > > > > The versioning protocol places no restriction on who can > > do an UNCHECKOUT (if there were, you would see it specified > > as a precondition for the UNCHECKOUT method). > > > > Cheers, > > Geoff > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Hall [mailto:johnhall@evergo.net] > > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 5:24 PM > > To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > > Subject: Should CHECKOUT support a TIMEOUT? > > > > > > > > ... And if not, is there a provision for someone other than the person > > who did the checkout performing an UNCHECKOUT? > > > > >
Received on Sunday, 17 June 2001 13:24:20 UTC