Re: Bug 143 (lock refresh), was: WGLC of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-14.txt

Lisa,

thanks for following up.

> By the way, I'd fix this bug in a heartbeat if I thought this would get 
> us done.  The example is inconsistent, although the precondition is 
> correct as is -- the problem is not that the lock token needed to be 
> submitted (one was), the problem is that the lock token does not match 
> the resource.

I'm not sure what section you're referring to here. If lock refresh uses 
  the "If" header to specify the token of the lock to be refreshed, 
using a precondition code that refers to the "Lock-Token" request header 
simply is misleading.

> But rather than make just this one change to the document,  I'm waiting 
> for somebody to help us make progress on other issues or somebody to 
> agree that other issues are closed.  Jim, maybe if you're less swamped 
> now you can review the state?

Agreement. We need to get the process back on track. If I had the 
impression that work would be useful, I'd start to make suggestions for 
all open issues mentioned in 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html>.

Best regards, Julian