RE: rfc2518 issue: DEFER_LOCK_NULL_RESOURCES_IN_SPEC

I agree with Jason's revision, although I'd probably further revise the
wording to say:

"When a new resource is created by a LOCK request against an
unmapped URI, if an UNLOCK is applied to that resource before it
has been explicitly updated (e.g. by a PUT or a PROPPATCH), then
that resource SHOULD NOT be deleted as a side effect of the UNLOCK.
Note that this changes the behavior defined in RFC-2518, which
stated that the resource MUST be deleted in this case."

Cheers,
Geoff



-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 2:12 PM
To: Alan Kent
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: Re: rfc2518 issue: DEFER_LOCK_NULL_RESOURCES_IN_SPEC





> - UNLOCK on the same URI without a PUT should (can?) delete the resource

I think most people would change this to be...

- UNLOCK on the same URI without a PUT should NOT delete the resource

This will give existing implementations that try to delete it some
flexibility but push people away from that direction.  I doubt we can say
anything stronger right now.

Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 17:01:31 UTC