


From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:46:06 +0100
Message-ID: <4398472E.2020600@gmx.de>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org


yesterday's conference call resulted in kind of interesting
news on this issues.

took the position that the text called GULP - the Grand Unified Locking 
Proposal (see for instance [1]) - doesn't need to be incorporated into 
RFC2518bis because all it says is already covered over there.

indeed disagreement on locking semantics, and that we need to resolve 
that one way or another.


(1) Should there be a single (normative) place in the doc which provides 
a high-level overview of locking, similar but not necessarily identical 
with GULP?

that yes, we want that.

bindings (issue 54)? Consider:



answer to that one is that you don't need the lock token. Removing the 
any URL that is protected by that lock (/foo/a and /foo/). A lock token 
would need to be provided if the resource /foo itself would be locked, 
but it isn't.

the lock token because it affects the state of resource Z. This may be 
confusing, but follows from the fact that the URI of a resource is not 
part of it's lockable state. My assumption is that any other attempt to 
define this would be even more confusing.

Feedback appreciated,


[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005OctDec/1003.html>

Received on Thursday, 8 December 2005 14:47:57 GMT
