Subject: RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER

From: "Jason Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 23:41:46 -0500

I'm closing out the issue of HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER

I've added the issue of the server maintaining the unaltered value of
DAV:owner that the locking client provides.   No further discussion
neccessary.

I've added an issue to note that the spec should make it clear that the
roundtrip behavior of DAV:owner should match the round trip behavior of
dead properties.  The issue for that one is PROP_ROUNDTRIP and we still
need to resolve it.

I think we've resolved that we CAN add a more clearly defined property as a
child of DAV:lockinfo, but I've not added an issue on this.  If we still
want to pursue a new field, I'll add an issue for it.

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:24:36 +0100

> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 5:42 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: HOW_TO_IDENTIFY_LOCK_OWNER
>
>
>

Sounds good.

> want to pursue a new field, I'll add an issue for it.

I think we should to that.

If the concern is that we can't add new features to the RFC revision, I'd
like to propose that we collect all things that *extend* WebDAV (and for
which we have a consensus) into a new, separate draft (which could be
submitted as experimental protocol at the time the RFC2518 revision is
done).