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

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?

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Korver [mailto:briank@xythos.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 1:57 PM
To: WebDAV
Subject: Re: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)



On Saturday, March 1, 2003, at 06:27  AM, Clemm, Geoff wrote:
>    Bindings and Locks
>
>    The relationship between bindings and locks is missing
>    from the draft.  I think the behavior of locks and the
>    lock methods should be fully specified in this draft.
>
> RFC2518bis is in the process of finalizing the behavior of
> locks, and we do not want the bind draft to say anything that
> conflicts with this.  Instead, we will make sure that the
> locking model in RFC2518bis clearly defines locking behavior
> in the presence of multiple bindings.

It probably isn't a good idea to introduce a dependency
such as this, especially since 2518bis doesn't have any
notion of bindings.  I don't believe that the binding
document can move forward.

-brian
briank@xythos.com

Received on Monday, 3 March 2003 15:32:36 UTC