- From: Hall, Shaun <Shaun.Hall@GBR.XEROX.COM>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:59:59 +0100
- To: "'Ilya Kirnos'" <ilya.kirnos@oracle.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Bits snipped, all IMHO. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ilya Kirnos [mailto:ilya.kirnos@oracle.com] > Sent: 31 July 2001 02:59 > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: rfc2518 issue: DEFER_LOCK_NULL_RESOURCES_IN_SPEC > > I agree: my first choice would be for abandoning the concept > of a null > lock, but if people feel strongly they should be kept, the semantics > should be changed to allow the server to create an actual > file to track > the lock. I don't think LNRs should be changed at all. You could use a file to track the lock if you wish and you won't be deviating from the RFC. The RFC doesn't place restrictions on implementation (in this case LNRs) - you can basically use whatever you want, so why are you suggesting that the semantics should be changed ? Its an implementation problem, not a protocol problem. > > > -ilya > Regards Shaun Hall Xerox Europe
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 05:00:11 UTC