- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:58:22 -0700
- To: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
- Cc: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
On Apr 5, 2004, at 11:55 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > Julian wrote: > >> Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> >>> I've re-reviewed the bind draft. Many of these issues have come up >>> before but I feel they haven't been resolved in the draft. >>> >>> General >>> ----------- >>> >>> The spec must stand alone, not be dependent on changes to RFC2518 in >>> 'bis'. Otherwise, bind can't be approved until RFC2518bis is >>> approved. >>> That means no dependencies for things like 'lockroot'. >> >> There isn't any. > > Lisa, was your reference to 'lockroot' a pointer to one such reference > which exists, or something which is added to 2518bis which you point > out is not allowed to be used in the bind draft? In this discussion, I asked whether a user can UNLOCK a binding that wasn't the binding where the LOCK was issued (these are both bindings to the same resource). One of the email answers was that the client software could always use the "lockroot" element in the lock information to discover which URI was locked and thus they could find out which one to unlock. I find that answer unacceptable for two reasons. First, 'lockroot' isn't standardized -- it's only a proposed extension to WebDAV/RFC2518, and not all servers implementing bindings must implement this proposed extension. Second, it doesn't answer the question of how server implementations of bindings MUST behave. Lisa
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 15:59:05 UTC