Subject: RE: Using If and not failing

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 13:24:40 -0500

There have been two ways proposed to submit lock tokens
without the request failing if the locks don't match:

(1) Extend the if header syntax to allow comma 
separated lists, and use "NOT (<DAV:no-lock>)" pattern
if you want to ignore whether the locks are valid.

(2) Add a new header.

Both of these involve extending the protocol, so we do
need some way of letting the client know that it is
talking to a 2518bis server (so that it knows whether
or not to use the extension).  Let us just then move
forward on the assumption that we will define some 
appropriate new value for the DAV: header.

Now as for deciding between which of these two approaches
to use:

The advantage of the first approach is that it is needed
anyway for correct use of the locking protocol for COPY
or MOVE when a large number of locks are present.
So we should make this extension in 2518bis, whether or
not we believe the protocol should support ignoring
invalid locks.  But once we make this needed change, the
new header becomes redundant.

Therefore I strongly prefer approach (1).  I also strongly
prefer that we settle this issue once and for all, and move
on.  

Cheers,
Geoff