W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: root of a lock, was HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:24:43 +0200
To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCGEHHEOAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> To: Daniel Brotsky <dbrotsky@adobe.com>
> Cc: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> Message-ID: <OF7C4220CB.830F87EE-ON85256B41.006F0EFA@pok.ibm.com>
> From: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:19:50 -0500
> Subject: RE: root of a lock, was HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER
> > In addition to Geoff's answer:
> > If you are an administrator trying to unlock a resource obtained by
> > someone else, you have to be able to figure out which resource to
> > unlock.  You can't unlock an internal member of a collection that's
> > locked by a depth-inifinity lock without knowing which collection was
> > actually locked.
> CAN'T?

(going back to an old discussion...)

RFC2518, 8.11 says [1]:

"The UNLOCK method removes the lock identified by the lock token in the
Lock-Token request header from the Request-URI, and all other resources
included in the lock. If all resources which have been locked under the
submitted lock token can not be unlocked then the UNLOCK request MUST fail.

So do we have agreement that *any* of the URIs affected by a deep lock can
be used to do the UNLOCK operation?

[1] <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#METHOD_UNLOCK>
Received on Monday, 8 July 2002 07:25:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:26 UTC