- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 15:18:36 +0200
- To: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
OK, seems that we had consensus on this protocol extension (got OKs from: Geoff Clemm, Dan Brotsky and Jason Crawford, and no negative feedback). This should close issue #89 (FINDING_THE_ROOT_OF_A_DEPTH_LOCK). Lisa, is there any chance that we may be able to get this into the RFC2518 revision? I'm happy to provide a URL of a test server implementing this in time before the interop meeting. Regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 9:39 AM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: discovering the root of a deep lock > > > (see also issue LOCKS_SHOULD_THEY_USE_AN_IF_HEADER_TO_VERIFY) > > Proposed syntax: > > 12.1 activelock XML Element > > Name: > activelock > Namespace: > DAV: > Purpose: > Describes a lock on a resource. > > <!ELEMENT activelock (lockscope, locktype, depth, owner?, > timeout?, locktoken?, lockroot?) > > > > 12.1.x lockroot XML Element > > Name: > lockroot > Namespace: > DAV: > Purpose: > For locks with depth infinity, servers SHOULD report the root of > the lock using the DAV:lockroot element. This enables clients to > know the scope of resources affected by a subsequent UNLOCK with > the given lock token. For lock with depth 0, the DAV:lockroot > element MUST NOT be present. > > <!ELEMENT lockroot (href) > > > > -- > > Note: I made it a "SHOULD" in order not to break existing implementations. > > >
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 09:19:08 UTC