Subject: Comments on the "new" 2518 -- Compliance Level

From: "Kevin Wiggen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:48:04 -0800

Since the actions of Move, Copy, Delete are not backwardly compatible, I
don't agree with the Compliance Classes that are listed in the document.
A client will probably want to know if it's talking to an OLDER server
or a NEWER server before it takes action.  Thus there needs to be a way
for a client to tell.  Also can a server implement both (again for
backward compatibility) and thus let the client tell the server what
type of MOVE it would like (adding a DAV: 1 header or something). Maybe
DAV:1 = old RFC2518, DAV:2 = either RFC2518 w/ locks, and DAV:3 = new
RFC2518.  I am not sure how a server can be 1 & 3 with the changes to
MOVE/COPY/DELETE.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 09:27:08 +0100

Kevin Wiggen wrote:
> don’t agree with the Compliance Classes that are listed in the 
> document.  A client will probably want to know if it’s talking to an 
> OLDER server or a NEWER server before it takes action.  Thus there needs 
> to be a way for a client to tell.  Also can a server implement both 
> (again for backward compatibility) and thus let the client tell the 
> server what type of MOVE it would like (adding a DAV: 1 header or 
> something). Maybe DAV:1 = old RFC2518, DAV:2 = either RFC2518 w/ locks, 
> and DAV:3 = new RFC2518.  I am not sure how a server can be 1 & 3 with 
> the changes to MOVE/COPY/DELETE.

Again, there are no changes for MOVE/COPY/DELETE, and older clients are 
supposed to work with newer servers.

Best regards, Julian