Subject: [Bug 192] LOCK_ISSUES_LOCK_URI_TYPE

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 21:21:21 -0800

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192

[email-masked] changed:

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

------- Additional Comments From [email-masked]  2005-12-09 21:21 -------
I agree with Julian -- there isn't a compelling interoperability reason to add
additional information concerning new lock token URI types. Since we now have an
example of a second lock token URI type in the specification (the UUID URN), and
this was introduced without needing to indicate in its syntax that it's a lock
token, we seem to be able to introduce new lock token URI types without the
suggested change.

I'm closing this issue (with no changes to the specification) -- if someone else
feels strongly, they can reopen. 

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.