Subject: RE: New RFC2518bis draft, LOCK_REFRESH_BY_METHODS

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:46:24 -0400

I'm not so sure about the wording you suggest. It drops the requirement
that the lock MUST be refreshed if a refresh LOCk method is successful.
How about this:

"The timeout counter MUST be restarted if a refresh LOCK request is
successful.  The timeout counter SHOULD NOT be restarted at any other
time."

Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Crawford [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 8:25 AM
To: Lisa Dusseault
Cc: Webdav WG (E-mail)
Subject: Re: New RFC2518bis draft, LOCK_REFRESH_BY_METHODS

The current wording is difficult to understand. I'd suggest that the
wording be changed from...

The timeout counter SHOULD NOT be restarted any time an owner of the
lock sends a method to any member of the lock, including unsupported
methods, or methods which are unsuccessful. However the lock MUST be
refreshed if a refresh LOCK method is successfully received.

To simply say...

The timeout counter SHOULD only be restarted if a refresh LOCK method is
successfully received.

If you like, we can mention that this is a change from 2518.

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

---

From: Dan Brotsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:23:31 -0700

I like Lisa's latest proposal.

I have two concern, based on no experience but just reading the text:

1. is it clear that REFRESH on any resource controlled by the lock (not 
just the URI in the original request) refreshes the counter?

2. is it clear that server policy is allowed to refresh the lock for its 
own reasons?

Perhaps the following wording is true to the original but slightly 
clearer on these points?

The timeout counter MUST be restarted if a refresh LOCK request is 
successfully executed on any resource controlled by the lock.  The 
timeout counter SHOULD NOT be restarted as a consequence of any other 
client request.

     dan

On Thursday, June 27, 2002, at 09:46 AM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> I’m not so sure about the wording you suggest. It drops the requirement 
> that the lock MUST be refreshed if a refresh LOCk method is 
> successful.  How about this:
>
>  
>
> “The timeout counter MUST be restarted if a refresh LOCK request is 
> time.”
> The timeout counter SHOULD only be restarted if a refresh LOCK method 
> is successfully received.
>