unclear on shared lock support

[Joe Orton]

Hi John,

On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 11:50:08PM -0800, John Meissen wrote:
> I consider shared vs exclusive to be a lock attribute. There are other
> requested attributes, like timeout, that a server is free to ignore.
> I interpreted the RFC as allowing me to ignore the request to make the
> lock shared, and permitting me to create the lock in the mode I support
> (exclusive), especially since the actual lock characteristics are 
> detailed in the response body. Hence there shouldn't be any confusion
> on the client's part since it can see what type of lock was created.

Hmmm, interesting.

I agree that neon/litmus should check that the lock returned by LOCK 
matches the lock type requested, and fail/skip subsequent shared lock 
tests appropriately.

But I don't agree that it's a valid interpretation of 4918 to downgrade 
the lock type from exclusive to shared.  There is specific language in 
4918 explaining that the timeout is a "suggestion" made by the client - 
there is no such language in the section on the lock type.

If you can get consensus on the DAV list (w3c-dist-auth at w3.org) that 
this behaviour is to be permitted then I'll update litmus to SKIP rather 
than FAIL if the shared lock request is downgraded.

Regards, Joe