RE: [Bug 2] Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings in teract with locks.

• From: Fay, Chuck <CFay@filenet.com>
• Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:18:23 -0800
• To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <FBEB6CC95F05FC49A9446D797F7ADE5704186A99@hq-ex2kpo1.filenet.fn.com>

I would like to revise and expand on some wording that I introduced in
the first sentence, to make it clearer:
2.x UNLOCK and Bindings
Due to the specific language used in section 8.11 of [RFC2518], it might
be thought that an UNLOCK request to a locked resource would unlock just
the particular binding expressed by the Request-URI, rather than the
resource identified by that URI.  This is not the case, however.
Section 6 of [RFC2518] clearly states that locks are on resources, not
URIs, so the server MUST allow UNLOCK to be used to unlock a locked
resource through any binding to that resource.  The authors of this
specification anticipate and recommend that future revisions of
[RFC2518] maintain this behavior.
Julian Reschke wrote:
> Ok,
> 
> so do we have consensus to add the following subsection to 
> section 2 
> (<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-late
> st.html#overview.of.bindings>)?
> 
> 
> 2.x UNLOCK and Bindings
> 
> Due to the specific language used in section 8.11 of 
> [RFC2518], it might 
> be thought that an UNLOCK request to a locked resource would 
> unlock just 
> the binding of the Request-URI.  This is not the case, 
> however.  Section 
> 6 of [RFC2518] clearly states that locks are on resources, 
> not URIs, so 
> the server MUST allow UNLOCK to be used to unlock a locked resource 
> through any binding to that resource.  The authors of this 
> specification 
> anticipate and recommend that future revisions of [RFC2518] maintain 
> this behavior.

Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 22:18:55 UTC