Re: [Bug 2] Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings interact with locks.

I keep re-opening this issue because the spec still doesn't say what 
the server MUST do or what the client must be prepared to handle.  I 
don't care how you answer it on the list or in bugzilla; I am not even 
arguing for any specific answer.  I am arguing for some *specification* 

These answers may follow from RFC2518 in your interpretation, but there 
have been and will be other interpretations.  Without clear guidance, 
some clients will assume that the URL that they query (the target of 
PROPFIND) is the one that MUST appear in the lockdiscovery property for 
that URL, and that if another URL appears the server must be broken.  
Some clients will associate only one URL with each locktoken and be 
confused if the same locktoken appears on some other URL.   Some 
clients will assume that if a URL that they query is locked (and they 
have the lock token, etc) they can UNLOCK the same URL.   If server 
implementors aren't forced to make compatible choices, then we will 
have interoperability problems surrounding bindings.  We have 
specifications not just so we can explain the model, but also to make 
requirements of implementors.


On Jan 13, 2005, at 3:44 PM, wrote:

> ------- Additional Comments From  
> 2005-01-13 15:44 -------
> I'm not sure why you keep re-opening this issue. Your particular 
> questions
> answered in 
> <>, and
> these answers follow from what RFC2518 already says.
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.

Received on Friday, 14 January 2005 00:01:54 UTC