Subject: RE: Interop issue: Proposal for fixing lock token provision

From: "Jason Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 19:06:06 -0400

We need to hear more from folks.  Things have been unusually quiet on this
subject.

Jason and Lisa have spoken up in favor of splitting the functionality.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002JulSep/0397.html (and
previous postings)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002OctDec/0003.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002OctDec/0004.html

Stefan has spoken against it before that time, but it is unclear if he
understood the
proposal.  Hopefully the proposal is clearer now.

Let's hear from you folks...

J.

------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569

---

From: Stefan Eissing <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:01:28 +0200

Am Samstag, 05.10.02, um 01:06 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Jason 
Crawford:

> understood the proposal.  Hopefully the proposal is clearer now.

I try to summarize the proposal in my own wording. Let's see if we
have a common understanding of the proposal:

a) the If header is used for checking state of resource(s) as in 2518. 
ETags
    and lock tokens can be used for state checking.
b) on modifications of resources, the server is required (as stated in 
2518)
    to check if the client "submitted" the necessary tokens.
   A new header is introduced which keeps untagged lock tokens. Those
   lock tokens are regarded as "submitted by the client".
c) lock tokens in If headers are not considered as "submitted by the 
client"
d) all state productions in a If header are checked, not only those that
   apply to "affected" resources by the operation.

I have further questions to this, but they can wait. Currently I am 
interested
to know if this is a good summary of the key points of the proposal.

//Stefan