Subject: RE: New RFC2518bis draft

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 19:33:54 -0400

From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email-masked]]

   > From:  Lisa Dusseault

   > Section 4.5: Propertybehavior (in MOVE, COPY) removed

   Maybe MOVE and COPY need to be treated differently. If a server
   can't move a resource with it's live properties staying alive, I'd
   claim that it actually can't move the resource at all, and thus
   MOVE should fail (requiring the client to fall back to
   COPY/DELETE).

   Opinions?

I agree that MOVE and COPY need to be treated differently, and I
further agree that MOVE should fail if live properties cannot be
maintained (requiring the client to fall back to COPY/DELETE).

Lisa: I noticed that you did not respond to Julian's concern
about deprecating DAV:allprop.  Does this mean that you agree with
his proposal to have it mean "2518 properties and all dead properties"?
Note that I am happy to have DAV:allprop be given this interpretation.

Cheers,
Geoff

---

From: Dan Brotsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 08:35:34 -0700

> Note that I am happy to have DAV:allprop be given this interpretation.

I am also happy with changing DAV:allprop to be given this 
interpretation.  I also do NOT want deprecation done of DAV:allprop.  I 
think this can be a simple clarification without damaging existing 
client interoperability (given the existing actual behavior of servers) 
or introducing confusion for new ones.

     dan