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

Re: overwrite and depth-0 locks

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:49:08 +0200
Message-ID: <4613C8F4.1090203@gmx.de>
To: Tim Olsen <tolsen718@gmail.com>
CC: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Tim Olsen schrieb:
> 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.

True. That statement is incorrect with respect to locking (as a COPY 
with Overwrite: T may just be updating an existing resource, while a 
MOVE will remove the binding and thus affect the parent collection):

> 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.
> Cheers,
> Tim

I would say no matter how you implement it, the lock token needs to be 
submitted. You are changing the state of the locked collection.

It's really unfortunate that the locking section of RFC2518bis hasn't 
fully adopted the very clear semantics we collaborated on, see 

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 15:49:42 UTC

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