- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 09:23:50 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On Nov 16, 2005, at 9:16 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> I agree there's a fair argument for allowing servers not to put lock >> tokens in lockdiscovery all the time. I can clarify the text there >> because there certainly isn't a consensus to require servers to do >> that. >> We could, however, treat the LOCK (create lock) response slightly >> differently, and require that the body contains the lockdiscovery >> property *including* the new lock token -- a special case to handle >> those clients that had problems at Interop tests. > > This does not make any sense. Sorry. > > It's the "Lock-Token" response header that *always* contains the > result. Why do you insist on changing the spec so that there's a > second mechanism? > Because that was the rough consensus at the Interop that year, amongst the people there, and I don't want to overthrow that too lightly. As soon as Cullen declares that there's a consensus for a single mechanism, I'll edit the spec according to the consensus. Lisa
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2005 17:24:10 UTC