Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-15.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:50:02 -0400

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the WWW Distributed Authoring and Versioning Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WebDAV
	Author(s)	: L. Dusseault
	Filename	: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-15.txt
	Pages		: 144
	Date		: 2006-5-15
	
WebDAV consists of a set of methods, headers, and content-types
   ancillary to HTTP/1.1 for the management of resource properties,
   creation and management of resource collections, URL namespace
   manipulation, and resource locking (collision avoidance).

   RFC2518 was published in February 1999, and this specification makes
   minor revisions mostly due to interoperability experience.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-15.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-15.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-15.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:24:14 +0200

Hi,

I didn't have enough time to review the changes [1] (yet), but thing 
caught my attention immediately...:

> Removed section on locks and multiple bindings.

...which used to read...

> 	6.9. Locks and Multiple Bindings	 		
> 				
> 	A resource may be made available through more than one URI. A lock			
> 	MUST cover the resource as well as the URI to which the LOCK request			
> 	was addressed. The lock MAY cover other URIs mapped to the same			
> 	resource as well.

What was wrong with that paragraph, and when was that discussed?

Best regards, Julian

[1] 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-15-from-14.diff.html>

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 16:06:28 -0400

See March 15, mail from John Barone and Manfred Baedke.

Lisa

On May 17, 2006, at 8:24 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I didn't have enough time to review the changes [1] (yet), but  
> thing caught my attention immediately...:
>
> [1] <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav- 
> rfc2518bis-15-from-14.diff.html>
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 20:46:04 +0200

> See March 15, mail from John Barone and Manfred Baedke.

Well, the text itself may need work, but dropping it altogether may not 
be wise. It's essential that we say *somewhere* that a LOCK to a 
resource a, identified by URL A1, also affects accesses through URL A2 
(with A1 != A2).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 10:46:59 -0400

I would rather keep the text myself but I was trying to follow WG  
consensus.  Do you have suggested changes to the text?

Lisa

On May 23, 2006, at 2:46 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Well, the text itself may need work, but dropping it altogether may  
> not be wise. It's essential that we say *somewhere* that a LOCK to  
> a resource a, identified by URL A1, also affects accesses through  
> URL A2 (with A1 != A2).
>
> Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Charlie Smith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 13:22:10 -0600

I Followed instructions in README file of davfs2-0.2.8
To get this to work. Directory mounted. However, still readonly.

Charlie

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
 intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
 privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
 disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
 intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
 and destroy all copies of the original message.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 18:06:50 +0200

> consensus.  Do you have suggested changes to the text?

Just change the text not to use the term "covered by", maybe say "protect".

Best regards, Julian