Subject: RE: Webdav issue: UNLOCK_BY_NON_LOCK_OWNERS

From: "Jason Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 17:31:48 -0500

I'd like to mark the UNLOCK_BY_NON_LOCK_OWNERS issues item as resolved.  As
far as I can tell, we have consensus, although not unanimous.  You can pick
up the discussions at the following URLs and search forward and backwards
from these.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2001JulSep/0157.html
(the start of discussion)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2001JulSep/0214.html
(the compromise proposal)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2001JulSep/0215.html
(the only dissenting opinion)

Has anyone changed their position?  Any further comments?

J.

------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569,   [email-masked]

---

From: Daniel Brotsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 02:16:31 -0800

At 5:31 PM -0500 1/6/02, Jason Crawford wrote:
>far as I can tell, we have consensus, although not unanimous.

Actually I think we may be closer to unanimous.  You'll see in my 
"lone dissent" that I actually agree with the wording of the 
proposal, but that I wanted a special syntax so a user could avoid 
the problem of accidentally unlocking a resource while thinking he 
had it locked (but in fact someone else did, and he simply had 
permission to perform the unlock).

Upon rereading Lisa's reply to my dissent, I am convinced that adding 
an entirely new syntax is probably more trouble than it's worth. 
Instead we should resolve the issue she raises about allowing 
discovery of who (in the sense of "the authenticated user id") owns a 
given lock.  (And probably, while we're in there, we should have a 
way of discovering where any given lock is actually rooted, since I 
think that's come up before and is needed to do the unlock.)

Jason, can you confirm that Lisa's issue is on the list and still 
active?  If so I'd like to pend this one until that one is resolved, 
with a note that this one can then be marked resolved.

Also please note that the there was an important, related issue 
re-raised at the first interop about using a Lock-Token: header 
instead of/in addition to an If:  header in a number of cases, one of 
which was UNLOCK.  (Without the lock-token header, you can't know 
which [non-exclusive] lock a client wants to release.)  What's the 
status of that issue?

     dan

>   You can pick

-- 
Daniel Brotsky, Adobe Systems
tel 408-536-4150, pager 877-704-4062
2-way pager email: <mailto:[email-masked]>