- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:01:28 +0200
- To: "Jason Crawford" <nn683849@smallcue.com>
- Cc: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Am Samstag, 05.10.02, um 01:06 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Jason
Crawford:
> 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.
ETags
and lock tokens can be used for state checking.
b) on modifications of resources, the server is required (as stated in
2518)
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
client"
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
interested
to know if this is a good summary of the key points of the proposal.
//Stefan
Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 05:02:18 UTC