- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:02:16 -0700
- To: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
It is fine with me, as long as a server can refuse the UNLOCK even if it does not implement the ACL specification. Cheers, -g On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 01:30:26PM -0400, Jason Crawford wrote: > > > Just so it doesn't get overlooked.... do we agree with what Geoff has said > below? > > J. > > ------------------------------------------ > Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com > > > "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>@w3.org on 08/21/2001 12:18:30 AM > > Sent by: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > > > To: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org> > cc: > 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 > > > -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sunday, 26 August 2001 21:01:05 UTC