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

Re: Interop issue: Proposal for fixing lock token provision

From: Jason Crawford <nn683849@smallcue.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:41:22 -0400
To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Cc: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <OF305F2C6E.6524134D-ON85256C3F.00514403@us.ibm.com>

On Wednesday, 09/25/2002 at 04:36 ZE2, Stefan Eissing  wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 24.09.02, um 21:27 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Jason
> Crawford:
> >> 2. Clients should ALSO be able to provide multiple unqualified lock
> >> tokens in order to prove that they have those tokens and can do write
> >> requests legally, in a way that does not impose conditions on the
> >> success of the request. This mechanism should not use or affect the
> >> Lock-Token header which is required in UNLOCK to specify a single lock
> >> token to remove or refresh. This mechanism should be capable of
> >> supporting many values.
> >>
> >> ...
> Now for (2): Except for the "unqualified" part, this can be expressed
> with current If header syntax as
> ...

I think part of their point here was that they want to seperate the
submission of lock tokens to satisfy the server's enforcement of
locking rules  from the clients' submission of pre-reqs for the
request   One type of submission (tokens) is pretty simple.
The other (conditional expressions) is not quite as simple.  But in
combination in the same header it makes for messy semantics.
For that reason, the If: header wasn't advocated for (2).   At least that's
I assume based on previous  discussions.

Phone: 914-784-7569
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 13:47:23 UTC

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