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

From: Jason Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 09:12:14 -0400

On Wednesday, 06/07/2006 at 11:28 ZE2, Manfred Baedke 
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Julian,
> 
> I really think that the text can be dropped completely. I do not see any
> implications that do not already follow from previous sections.

I wouldn't want to drop it completely.

---

From: Manfred Baedke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:34:39 +0200

I think that the MUST requirement follows from Section 6.1:

  8.  If a request causes the lock-root of any lock to become an 
unmapped URL, then the lock MUST also be deleted by that request.

So, in the presence of Section 6.1, Section 6.9 contains nothing 
normative, as far as I can see.
I think it should at least be moved to a less prominent place, maybe as 
an introduction to an adequate example.

P.S: Maybe this is the right time to promote my proposed text for 
Sections 6 and 7 again :) :

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2006JanMar/0814.html