- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:40:26 -0400
- To: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
OK, by me. If we do, we probably should have separate "lock" and "unlock" privileges. But I'd be happy to add this in later, if it is at all contentious. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Eric Sedlar [mailto:Eric.Sedlar@oracle.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 11:35 AM To: Webdav WG Subject: RE: Webdav issue: UNLOCK_BY_NON_LOCK_OWNERS Should we define an UNLOCK privilege as a part of the ACL spec? > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 9:19 PM > To: Webdav WG > Subject: RE: Webdav issue: UNLOCK_BY_NON_LOCK_OWNERS > > > Well, that's a really easy change, i.e. all you have to do is > absolutely nothing (:-). Currently, section 11 in 2518 places > no constraints on who can do an UNLOCK operation (i.e. if you > can discover the lock token, you can request an UNLOCK). The ACL spec > introduces ways to constrain who can do an operation. So we're done (:-). > > Cheers, > Geoff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 11:57 PM > To: Webdav WG > Subject: RE: Webdav issue: UNLOCK_BY_NON_LOCK_OWNERS > > > > > > It sounds like we might have consensus opinion that the power to unlock > someone else's locked resource should be under ACL control. > Could someone > that feels strongly about this propose a wording and placement in > 2518 that > makes this proposal concrete? > > Thanks, > > J. > > ------------------------------------------ > Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com > >
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2001 12:41:02 UTC