Subject: Resolve Issue 67 UNLOCK_NEEDS_IF_HEADER

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:05:09 +0200

Hi,

this issue (<http://www.webdav.org/wg/rfcdev/issues.htm>) reads:

"Shouldn’t we be using an IF header to do an UNLOCK seeing as you need 
to prove you are holding a lock before you can remove it?  (This might 
be contingent on LOCKS_SHOULD_THEY_USE_AN_IF_HEADER_TO_VERIFY)"

The tests that I have done (for other UNLOCK related issues) show that 
servers indeed use the "Lock-Token" request header to indicate the lock 
to be removed; and that they do not require an additional "If" header. 
This may have been a valid point before the spec was finished, but now 
as we're talking about progressing/clarifying the protocol, we should 
just reject that issue.

Jason, can you please update the issues list? I'll update 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-locking-latest.html#rfc.issue.067_UNLOCK_NEEDS_IF_HEADER> 
accordingly.

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

---

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 06:55:10 -0400

And if the facts on the ground weren't enough, it doesn't
make sense anyway, because any authorized user should be
able to remove a lock (to allow the removal of a lock when
the client owning the lock no longer exists or is misbehaving).

So I concur that this issue should be marked resolved,
with no action.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 06/15/2004 03:05:09 AM:
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-locking-
> latest.html#rfc.issue.067_UNLOCK_NEEDS_IF_HEADER> 
> accordingly.