- From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 01:15:30 -0400
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
Sounds good to me Geoff. Do we have any other comments? Agreement? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd just delete the paragraph in 9.8 that states: The timeout counter SHOULD be restarted any time an owner of the lock sends a method to any member of the lock, including unsupported methods, or methods which are unsuccessful. However the lock MUST be refreshed if a refresh LOCK method is successfully received. The last sentence is redundant, since it is already specified in the LOCK semantics. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2001 10:20:46 UTC