Subject: RE: WebDAV and write access discovery

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 09:30:52 -0400

From: Steinar Bang [mailto:[email-masked]]

   > but I don't know whether or not servers tend to fail requests to get
   > write-locks on read-only resources.

   I thought 8.10.7 of RFC 2518 would require them to return a 412 in
   this case (ie. "lock token not enforcable on this resource")...?

A write lock does not guarantee the lock-token-holder the ability
to write to a resource ... it just denies non-lock-token-holders
that ability.  So a server would be enforcing the lock, even if
there are reasons (such as ACLs) that prevent the lock-holder from
writing to the resource.

Cheers,
Geoff

---

From: Steinar Bang <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 09:41:51 +0200

>>>>> "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>:

>> but I don't know whether or not servers tend to fail requests to
>> get write-locks on read-only resources.

> A write lock does not guarantee the lock-token-holder the ability to
> write to a resource ... it just denies non-lock-token-holders that
> ability.  So a server would be enforcing the lock, even if there are
> reasons (such as ACLs) that prevent the lock-holder from writing to
> the resource.

I think allowing locks on non-writable resources will create a lot of
confused client writers.

What's the rationale for keeping lock functionality separate from the
writability of a resource?

---

From: "Eric Sedlar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 09:57:59 -0700

Perhaps a better thing to do would be to add privileges controlling
who can LOCK a resource?  (This could be aggregated under write on 
particular implementations)

--Eric

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Steinar Bang
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 12:42 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: WebDAV and write access discovery
> 
>