Re: overwrite and depth-0 locks

Geoffrey M Clemm schrieb:
> 
> All use cases below other than #1 require the
locktoken.
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff

Correct.

In all cases except #1, the state of the collection is
changed, by 
replacing a binding (aka "path segment mapping" in
RFC2518bis).

Tim: speaking of which, was there anything in 
draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-18 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-
ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-18.html>) 
or draft-ietf-webdav-bind-18 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-w
ebdav-bind-18.html>) 
suggesting something else?

Best regards, Julian

On 3/29/07, Julian Reschke <julian.reschkegmx.de> wrote:
> Tim: speaking of which, was there anything in
> draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-18
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-
ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-18.html>)
> or draft-ietf-webdav-bind-18
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-w
ebdav-bind-18.html>)
> suggesting something else?

Somewhat.  The very beginning of section 9.9 of 2518bis
says
"The MOVE operation on a non-collection resource is the
logical
equivalent of a copy (COPY), followed by consistency
maintenance
processing, followed by a delete of the source, where all
three
actions are performed in a single operation"

which might imply that one does not require the locktoken.

But the bind draft is pretty clear that REBIND and BIND
require the
locktoken.  This would imply that if I implemented MOVE
using REBIND,
then MOVE would require the locktoken.

I think that's how I got confused.

Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers,
Tim

>
> Best regards, Julian
>