Re: Call for consensus on UNLOCK Request-URI being lock root

On Monday, 07/05/2004 at 01:16 ZE2, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Jason Crawford wrote:
> 
> > I'd relax the server side to accept refresh requests at any resource 
in
> > the scope of the lock.   Unless given a reason though, I'd still
> > encourage servers to send the refresh requests to the root of the 
lock.
> 
> I guess you mean "clients" in the second sentence.
Correct.

> The problem with this approach is that it makes little sense in a
> specification. If we say that servers SHOULD allow refresh against
> indirectly locked resources, it doesn't make sense to tell clients not
> to use it.
I think it does make sense from the perspective of flexibility, and we've 
done it before, but I don't have a strong preference.  My stronger 
preference is that we move forward. 

J.