Subject: Re: Bug 143 (lock refresh), was: WGLC of draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-14.txt

From: Jason Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:34:21 -0400

On Friday, 05/12/2006 at 02:04 ZE2, Julian Reschke 
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> > WG on Feb 20 which way we should go on this, and nobody answered.
> 
> That's correct, and that makes me really worry about the amount of
> review this is getting. Again, this is an incompatible change both to
> clients and servers, 

Is it incompatible?  Clients can use both approaches/headers at once and 
the server can respect which ever.  If in doubt it can respect the newer
spec since the client has demonstrated knowledge of that.  Right?

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 14:40:45 +0200

> spec since the client has demonstrated knowledge of that.  Right?

Well, no.

First of all, clients can not rely on the fact that setting both headers 
will work. There may be existing servers that choke upon Lock-Token 
request headers for LOCK.

Servers need to respect both, because that's what RFC2518bis says.

This seems to be a lot of changes both client-side and server-side for 
an extremely small gain in protocol beauty. In particular if servers are 
required to support the old syntax more or less infinitely (or did I 
miss an announcement that WebDAV support in MS Office is going to be 
upgraded???).

Anyway: I'd still be interested in *any* implementor saying "yes, this 
is an improvement that we'll going to implement".

Best regards, Julian