- From: <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:47:44 -0500
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
<jim davis> I read 7.5 as saying that even a depth zero lock is inherited, because it does not say "only depth infinity". You and others have asserted that this is bad. When I asked why, you said it causes problems for BIND. </jim davis> <jra> I think this is assuming too much from missing information. I do not draw this conclusion given the inheritance of depth locks on existing resources. Locking a collection with depth:0 does not lock any of the members of the collection. So why would adding a new member inherit the lock? </jra>
Received on Monday, 29 November 1999 09:48:19 UTC