- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 09:33:20 +0100
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
- Cc: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Ok with me. Am Montag, 03.03.03, um 21:31 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Clemm, Geoff: > > 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 Tuesday, 4 March 2003 03:33:47 UTC