RE: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)

On Monday, 03/03/2003 at 03:31 EST, "Clemm, Geoff"
<nngclemm___at___Rational.Com@smallcue.com> wrote:
> OK, since the bind protocol only introduces one
> new method, with simple behavior in the presence of
> locks, I'm happy to add the appropriate precondition
> to the BIND definition.  In particular, I propose to
> add the following precondition:
>
> (DAV:locked-update-allowed): if the collection identified by the
Request-URL
> is write-locked, then the appropriate token MUST be specified in an If
> request header.
>
> Anyone object to this addition?

I don't object, but I feel if we do add this, we'll also have to list the
possibility
of the binding being protected by a lock in the subtree.   I think that
isn't covered
by the wording above.    I'm not sure if you want to reword this one or add
another
precondition.

J.