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

Re: Interop issue: Proposal for fixing lock token provision

From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:01:28 +0200
Cc: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: "Jason Crawford" <nn683849@smallcue.com>
Message-Id: <5DA6C024-D9D3-11D6-8D7B-00039384827E@greenbytes.de>

Am Samstag, 05.10.02, um 01:06 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Jason 

> We need to hear more from folks.  Things have been unusually quiet on 
> this
> subject.
> Jason and Lisa have spoken up in favor of splitting the functionality.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002JulSep/0397.html 
> (and
> previous postings)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002OctDec/0003.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002OctDec/0004.html
> Stefan has spoken against it before that time, but it is unclear if he
> understood the proposal.  Hopefully the proposal is clearer now.

I try to summarize the proposal in my own wording. Let's see if we
have a common understanding of the proposal:

a) the If header is used for checking state of resource(s) as in 2518. 
    and lock tokens can be used for state checking.
b) on modifications of resources, the server is required (as stated in 
    to check if the client "submitted" the necessary tokens.
   A new header is introduced which keeps untagged lock tokens. Those
   lock tokens are regarded as "submitted by the client".
c) lock tokens in If headers are not considered as "submitted by the 
d) all state productions in a If header are checked, not only those that
   apply to "affected" resources by the operation.

I have further questions to this, but they can wait. Currently I am 
to know if this is a good summary of the key points of the proposal.

Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 05:02:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:27 UTC