Tim Olsen schrieb:
> On 3/29/07, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke gmx.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.
True. That statement is incorrect with respect to locking
(as a COPY
with Overwrite: T may just be updating an existing resource,
while a
MOVE will remove the binding and thus affect the parent
collection):
> 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
I would say no matter how you implement it, the lock token
needs to be
submitted. You are changing the state of the locked
collection.
It's really unfortunate that the locking section of
RFC2518bis hasn't
fully adopted the very clear semantics we collaborated on,
see
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3
c-dist-auth/2005OctDec/1003.html>).
Best regards, Julian
|
