- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:30:39 -0500
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
From: Stefan Eissing [mailto:stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de] > From: Clemm, Geoff > > In general, the user will not map 1-1 with a "principal", but rather > a user will "match" one or more principals. Therefore I do not see > that it is feasible or desireable to try to identify a particular > principal for the current user. I do not fully understand. There is always a principal for a request (and be it {DAV:}anonymous), so it would be easy for a server to keep this information with an active lock. No, there are credentials for a request, but those credentials can match a variety of principals in a variety of different principal spaces relevant to the ACL on a resource. When there is a ACL privilege {DAV:}can-unlock and this is granted to a particular principal on the locked resource, the usualy ACL matching of principals would apply. It is not matching of principals that takes place, but rather the matching of the client credentials against the principals identified in the ACE of an ACL. So, I do not see the problem with reporting a locking-principal as part of an active lock. What am I missing? Servers without ACL? I think the only thing being missed is that a client has credentials, and that these credentials match a variety of principals, as opposed to identifying the client as *being* a particular principal. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 08:31:42 UTC