Subject: [Bug 179] DAV:no-lock

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:40:46 -0800

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179

[email-masked] changed:

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

------- Additional Comments From [email-masked]  2005-12-31 02:40 -------
(now in
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-09.html#rfc.section.9.5.4.p.4>)

I still that this is the incorrect approach. Don't use RFC2119 keywords for
stuff that is a consequence from other requirements. Just explain why it follows
(if you feel that's necessary), but don't claim it's a requirement on it's own,
because that may confuse people to think that DAV:no-lock is special and
different from something like DAV:this-is-really-a-locktoken.

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

---

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 05:53:47 -0500

I agree with Julian.

Cheers,
Geoff