Subject: [Bug 29] refreshing locks

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:34:30 -0800

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29

[email-masked] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

------- Additional Comments From [email-masked]  2005-11-15 15:34 -------
Note that this isn't quite the same meaning -- it is explicit that a server
doesn't have to accept the Timeout value in the lock refresh request.  However
since timeouts chosen by clients have always been advisory, I believe this is
correct anyway.  The proposed text will be in 08.

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.