- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:31:56 -0500
- To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
OK, since the bind protocol only introduces one new method, with simple behavior in the presence of locks, I'm happy to add the appropriate precondition to the BIND definition. In particular, I propose to add the following precondition: (DAV:locked-update-allowed): if the collection identified by the Request-URL is write-locked, then the appropriate token MUST be specified in an If request header. Anyone object to this addition? Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Brian Korver [mailto:briank@xythos.com] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 1:57 PM To: WebDAV Subject: Re: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues) On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 06:27 AM, Clemm, Geoff wrote: > Bindings and Locks > > The relationship between bindings and locks is missing > from the draft. I think the behavior of locks and the > lock methods should be fully specified in this draft. > > RFC2518bis is in the process of finalizing the behavior of > locks, and we do not want the bind draft to say anything that > conflicts with this. Instead, we will make sure that the > locking model in RFC2518bis clearly defines locking behavior > in the presence of multiple bindings. It probably isn't a good idea to introduce a dependency such as this, especially since 2518bis doesn't have any notion of bindings. I don't believe that the binding document can move forward. -brian briank@xythos.com
Received on Monday, 3 March 2003 15:32:36 UTC