Re: Re (2): Status of RFC2518Bis

I guess I'd vote for Julian's option #2:

"Come up with a separate spec that updates RFC2518 and just summarizes
all that we changed or intend to change regarding locking (like
deprecation of lock-null resources, fixes to LOCK and lock refresh, If
header syntax, and lockdiscovery extensions). That would still be a
"draft standard" as RFC2518, but it would make things easier for
RFC2518bis as well, because all these changes would be written down in a
spec that came out prior to the revision, so wouldn't be "new" anymore. "


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Julian Reschke" <>
To: "Jim Luther" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re (2): Status of RFC2518Bis

> Jim Luther wrote:
> > Who needs locking? Apple's Mac OS X WebDAV file system client needs it.
> > Whenever a file (a non-collection resource on the WebDAV server) is
> > opened with write access, the WebDAV file system obtains a lock. The
> > lock is held until the file is closed. If a WebDAV server does not
> > support locks (i.e., it is not class 2 compliant), the WebDAV file
> > system mounts it read-only.
> Yes. Many applications need locking, and most servers provide it.
> However, it is optional right now, and will have to remain so.
> So what's the best way to come up with an updated/upgraded locking spec,
> if we can't wait for RFC2518bis?
> Discussion started back here:
> <>.
> More feedback appreciated.
> Regards, Julian
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 18:00:36 UTC