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

Jason Crawford wrote:

> On Monday, 07/05/2004 at 01:16 ZE2, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > 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.   

I agree with Jason: servers SHOULD allow refresh against indirectly 
locked resources, thereby allowing for clients the option to refresh the 
lock on a single resource while letting the lock expire on other 
resources. Without supporting this, the client would have to unlock and 
the lock the resource, thereby making it possible for another client to 
lock the resource in the interim.


Cheers,
Elias