Subject: Already resolved: EXTEND_UNDEFINED, LOCK_BODY_SHOULD_BE_MUST, PUT_ON_COLLECTION, LOCK_REFRESH_BODY

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:38:05 -0700

More issues thought to be resolved, from the WG meeting

49 EXTEND_UNDEFINED - this was defined in rfc2518bis -02 if not 
earlier, so it should be resolved "InBis"

52 LOCK_BODY_SHOULD_BE_MUST - this was Overtaken By Events (OBE),  so 
it should be resolved Closed or OBE.  Explanation: recent discussion on 
the list concluded that a LOCK request with a body was a request for a 
new lock, and a LOCK request without a body was a request for a lock 
refresh.  Obviously, it's not a MUST that a LOCK request has a body.

50 PUT_ON_COLLECTION - this should be resolved "rejected" or closed, 
because RFC2518 bis specifically was intended to be silent on what 
happens with PUT on collections.  It's not an interoperability problem 
in practice (or at least, hasn't been reported) so there's not a strong 
reason to come up with something here.

60 LOCK_REFRESH_BODY - This is resolved by the text that made 
LOCK_BODY_SHOULD_BE_MUST into an OBE issue, in -06.

(To be clear, I'm wearing my editor hat when I say that I think these 
are resolved.  I'll leave any arbitration to Joe who can keep his chair 
hat on.)

Lisa