Re: LOCKS_SHOULD_THEY_USE_AN_IF_HEADER_TO_VERIFY vs RFC2518bis-05

> > I *do* agree that "Lock-Token" technically is a better choice to 
select 
> > the lock to be refreshed, however...:
> > 
> > - RFC2518bis is unclear about whether you'll still need to specify the 

> > "If" header in the request (because one may argue that the LOCK 
refresh 
> > request is modifying the locked state of the resource)
> > 
> > - RFC2518bis says it is "recommended" to support the old marshalling 
> > ("If" header). I think for backwards compatibilty with existing client 

> > this should be a "REQUIRED".
> > 
> > Finally, I'm not so sure that this change really makes sense. As far 
as 
> > I can tell, no widely used server currently implements the new 
> > marshalling (I just tested IIS5, Apache/moddav2 and our own). Also, 
> > clients will likely continue to use the old format anyway, because 
after 
> > all it works just fine; and IIS is unlikely to be upgraded anytime 
soon :-)
> > 
> > So either
> > 
> > 1) roll back the change in RFC2518bis, or
> > 
> > 2) add both issue and resolution, and also clarify the issues 
mentioned 
> > above in new RFC2158bis text

The old way of overloading If seems pretty lame.   Can't new clients do 
both?
Can't new servers detect which approach in being used?

I wouldn't require servers to support the old way.  Supporting the old way 
is common sense but at some point we should encourage the movement to the 
new approach.

J.