W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: overwrite and depth-0 locks

From: Tim Olsen <tolsen718@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:35:11 -0400
Message-ID: <4be80d840704040835t783e9e92m291426719c3c3d1c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Geoffrey M Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

On 3/29/07, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Tim: speaking of which, was there anything in
> draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-18
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-18.html>)
> or draft-ietf-webdav-bind-18
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-18.html>)
> suggesting something else?

Somewhat.  The very beginning of section 9.9 of 2518bis says
"The MOVE operation on a non-collection resource is the logical
equivalent of a copy (COPY), followed by consistency maintenance
processing, followed by a delete of the source, where all three
actions are performed in a single operation"

which might imply that one does not require the locktoken.

But the bind draft is pretty clear that REBIND and BIND require the
locktoken.  This would imply that if I implemented MOVE using REBIND,
then MOVE would require the locktoken.

I think that's how I got confused.

Thanks for the clarification.


> Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 15:35:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:41 UTC