RE: rfc2518 issue: DEFER_LOCK_NULL_RESOURCES_IN_SPEC

> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
>
> My sense of the room at the Interop was that clients already relied on the
> ability to LOCK resources which don't previously exist, then do PUT.
>
> The only functionality which is under question, IMHO, is:
>  - whether clients can do LOCK then MKCOL (or MKACTIVITY, etc)
>  - whether the null or empty resource goes away when unlocked
>
> I'm happy with the current behaviour as specified by RFC2518 -- after all,
> we implemented it that way.  I'm not totally attached to the
> ability to turn
> a lock-null resource into a collection, or make it disappear when
> unlocked.

This summarizes also my ideas. WebDAV should stick to the LOCK behaviour
of null-resources, when followed by a PUT. I think there are no interop
problems when LOCK->MKCOL is discontinued or when the resource, created
by a LOCK on a null-resource, stays after lock timeout.

In fact, changing RFC2518 in this way, will make live for server
implementors much easier and probably result in more compliant
implementations.

//Stefan

> lisa
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford
> > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 10:12 AM
> > To: Clemm, Geoff
> > Cc: WebDAV
> > Subject: RE: rfc2518 issue: DEFER_LOCK_NULL_RESOURCES_IN_SPEC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd like to conclude this issue, but I've not heard any anything
> > to suggest
> > that we have agreement.  Discussion has been light.
> >
> > Stefan and Lisa, do you have a response to Geoff's response to your
> > postings?  Has anyone decided they agree with each another position?
> > Would someone else like to speak up and take/defend a position?
> >
> > J.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------
> > Phone: 914-784-7569,   ccjason@us.ibm.com
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2001 04:16:07 UTC