Subject: [Bug 50] Property teminology inconsistent with RFC3253

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 04:18:01 -0800

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50

[email-masked] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |

------- Additional Comments From [email-masked]  2006-01-01 04:18 -------
The changes look good to me, except that I would prefer to use some other
property than DAV:getcontentlength as example for "protected" (because that one
is even computed). Such as:

Section 14., para. 2:
OLD:

    A protected property is one which cannot be changed with a PROPPATCH
    request.  There may be other requests which would result in a change
    to a protected property (as when a PUT request to an existing
    resource causes DAV:contentlength to change to a new value).  Note
    that a given property could be protected on one type of resource, but
    not protected on another type of resource.

NEW:

    A protected property is one which cannot be changed with a PROPPATCH
    request.  There may be other requests which would result in a change
    to a protected property (as when a LOCK request affects the value of
    DAV:lockdiscovery).  Note that a given property could be protected on
    one type of resource, but not protected on another type of resource.

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.