Subject: Minor corrections needed in IF header examples ?

From: "Hall, Shaun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 15:23:32 +0100

Secs 9.4.1.1 and 9.4.3 give examples using the "IF" header. However, both
examples use literally "<locktoken:", but shouldn't this be
"<opaquelocktoken:"  (as per the definition in 6.4 and used throughout the
rest of the RFC) ?

Regards

Shaun Hall
Xerox Europe

---

From: "Jim Whitehead" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:56:49 -0700

> "<opaquelocktoken:"  (as per the definition in 6.4 and used throughout the

Actually, they're correct. Section 6.3 allows for any kind of lock token, so
long as it meets the uniqueness requirements stated there.

That said, it doesn't seem like there is a big advantage to allowing many
different kinds of lock token schemes. Or big disadvantage for that matter
:-)

- Jim