- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:53:55 +0200
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: "Cullen \"Fluffy\" Jennings" <fluffy@cisco.com>, WebDav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
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
Received on Thursday, 15 June 2006 18:54:09 UTC