Subject: RE: Limiting the scope of an untagged If Header production (was: RE: If Header: evaluation of all assertions)

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 13:36:15 -0400

I am somewhat concerned about the effect of this change on
the semantics of existing clients.

For example, do any clients today submit the etag of both the source
and the destination resource of a MOVE in an untagged If production?
If so, this change would remove the etag check on the Destination,
and thereby break the overwrite protection for that request. 

But if we won't be breaking existing clients, I fully support this
change, since it simplifies and clarifies the semantics of the 
If header.

Cheers,
Geoff  

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:[email-masked]]

Also, I would clarify what the untagged if production refers to, and it
should probably refer only to the resource named in the Request-URI.

---

From: Stefan Eissing <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:43:46 +0200

Another possible "breakage" is use of the untagged if header for
PUT on unmapped resources. At least our server uses then the
untagged production to check the parent resource.

//Stefan

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 10:09:25 -0700

That wouldn't necessarily break, depending on what you're checking.  I
assume you're checking a lock token because etags aren't defined for
collections.

E.g we could also make RFC2518bis clear on whether you can apply a lock
token (for a depth infinity lock) to any URL included in the scope of
the lock.  If we require servers to accept this as a valid use of the
lock token, then the untagged production applying to the Request-URI
still works in this case.

lisa

> From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]
> On Behalf Of Stefan Eissing
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 1:44 AM
> To: Clemm, Geoff
> Cc: 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: Re: Limiting the scope of an untagged If Header production
(was:
> RE: If Header: evaluation of all assertions)
> 
>

---

From: Stefan Eissing <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:20:50 +0200

Lisa, good idea. However this does not cover the case where the
collection has a shallow, exclusive lock.

I don't know now relevant/important this case is. Our client does,
for example, not use the untagged production, exactly because
server implementation differ most on this feature.

//Stefan

Am Montag, 14.10.02, um 19:09 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Lisa