- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:36:56 +0100
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Joe, thanks for the feedback. I've added all editorial issues to <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#rfc.issue.edit>, hoping that the document editor will take advantage of that compliation. Once issue deserves special comment: > 7.7 para two; the MUST requirement is confusing; is it a requirement on > client or server? The "use" of the request is something which is > controlled by the client, but this is a requirement concerning the > *interpretation* of the request, which is controlled by the server? > > The 7.7 para one MUST requirement seems redundant too really. If a > client chooses to submit an identical LOCK request twice, then the model > already specifies server behaviour. I think that actually the whole section should be removed. It's a mix of incorrect and confusing stuff, and normative statements that just duplicate what has been said before. There simply is no reason to mention lock refresh again in the context of write locks, because it's the same for every kind of lock. Having that section there is just confusing (see also <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#rfc.issue.bz217>). Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 26 February 2006 19:38:10 UTC