Subject: Re: unlock question

From: "Jason Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 16:37:11 -0500

> 1. Does UNLOCK require IF header specifying applicable write lock token?

I've tentitively added this as...UNLOCK_NEEDS_IF_HEADER

I believe that the current behavior is appropriate in that the only thing
the server needs to verify is that the client is aware of that lock and the
requestor is the principal that owns it.  If the client is explicitly
requesting that the lock be destroyed, the client obviously knows about the
lock and it's redundant to ask them to provide it in a second header.  I
think we need to treat the IF header not as a way for the server to confirm
that the client knows about a lock, but (as documented) a way for a client
to put a precondition on an request.   If you look at the documentation for
the IF header, this is the only thing it talks about.  And if the server
needs to verify that a client knows about a lock, it should be adequate for
the client to mention the lock in a any documented headers that we
enumerate to verify that the client knows about the lock.

> 2. UNLOCK should return 412 if valid lock token is not supplied as
> UNLOCK-TOKEN.

I've tentatively added this as...UNLOCK_WITHOUT_GOOD_TOKEN

J.

---

From: "Dan Brotsky" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:51:18 -0800

At 4:37 PM -0500 3/2/01, Jason Crawford wrote:
>lock and it's redundant to ask them to provide it in a second header.

I agree that the current behavior is fine when the lock that would go 
in the IF header is the one that is in the LOCK-TOKEN header.

>   I

I agree.  The issue is when there is more than one lock that applies 
to the resource.  Then I believe that the write lock needs to be 
specified in the IF header when an unlock is done on one of the other 
kinds of locks.

In general I find the spec weak around the requirements on 
non-exclusive lock handling.

>I've tentatively added this as...UNLOCK_WITHOUT_GOOD_TOKEN

Thanks!  Is there a more current version of the issues document than 
the one posted at 
http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/webdav/protocol/issues.html ?  That 
one shows a last update of 7/2000 and there was another issue I had 
raised in September that I wasn't sure had made it on.

     dan
-- 
Daniel Brotsky, Adobe Systems
tel 408-536-4150, pager 888-461-0237
2-way pager email: <mailto:[email-masked]>