Subject: [Bug 202] Move description of lock-null resources into appendix

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:38:38 -0800

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202

[email-masked] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |
            Version|-08                         |-09

------- Additional Comments From [email-masked]  2005-12-31 10:38 -------
The text is still confusing, in particular the Changes section claims
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-latest.html#rfc.section.E.1>)...

"Replaced lock-null resources with simpler locked empty resources. Lock-null
resources are now not compliant with the requirements in this specification."

It seems to me that this needs further discussion, both in what we say, and how
we say it. I'd suggest that we define locking on unmapped resources in a way so
that old servers simply happen to be compliant with it, while new servers can be
simplified. This would save us from discussing to separate models.

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.