Subject: [Bug 217] GULP integration

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:11:02 -0800

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217

[email-masked] changed:

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

------- Additional Comments From [email-masked]  2006-02-10 13:11 -------
Making a bunch of changes.  Here's my notes as I go.

1.  I know we discussed this in the con call but on reflection I'm unhappy with
the text in comment #12:   
    "A successful request for a new shared lock MUST result in the
    generation of a unique lock, with with a unique lock token, 
    associated with the requesting principal."
That wording makes the "associated with" unclear.  I think the fix is to not
mention the lock token but just say 
    "A successful request for a new shared lock MUST result in the
    generation of a unique lock associated with the requesting principal."

2.  We discuss the lack of requirement for servers to accept lock requests from
anonymous users but this extends of course to random authenticated users.  Thus
    "There is no requirement for servers to accept lock requests from all users
    or from anonymous users."

Other changes of course but I think this is the only stuff that diverged at all
from what was discussed in the conf call.

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