RE: GULP (version 5)

   From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]

   > From: Clemm, Geoff
   >
   > - If a request would modify the content or dead properties of a
   > locked resource, or would modify the bindings of a locked
   > collection, the request MUST fail unless the lock-token for that
   > lock is submitted in the request.

   Again, this is incomplete. We really need to get to a proper
   definition about what the state of a resource is.  At a minimun, it
   consists of:
   - content
   - dead properties
   - internal members (for collections)
   and
   - *some* live properties (DAV:lockdiscovery, DAV:getcontenttype,
   DAV:label-set, DAV:checked-in...)

Yes, you did already point that out, and I meant to add that.  Sorry
about the omission.

   Not that I like it but maybe any definition of live properties will
   have to specify whether the property would be proteced by a lock?

Yes, I think that is our only alternative.  (RFC-3253 does so).

Cheers,
Geoff