W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Managing multiple authorities, resources and representations

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:03:05 +0100
Message-ID: <4C10D479.9070105@webr3.org>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi,

I currently have a program running that handles requests for multiple 
reg-name authorities (thus can originate authoritative responses for 
multiple 'domain names'), in addition the same program can also 
originate authoritative responses to both HTTP and HTTP+TLS requests.

The program (origin-server) accepts entities through POST and PUT, and 
often defines multiple new URIs when a resource is created.


 From HTTPBis p2-semantics-09 section-7.6 | PUT:
   'a PUT request on a general URI might result in several other URIs
    being defined by the origin server.'

1: I can't find any definition of the term 'general URI', can you clarify?

2: How does an origin-server inform a client in a Response that several 
other URIs have been defined, and indeed what URIs they are?

3: Does the Working Group have any guidance on whether:
  (a) the other URIs must or should be under the same authority as
      specified in the client Request (ie the same domain name)
  (b) the other URIs must or should use the same scheme

4: Is some conflation introduced by swapping terminology / context from 
'creating resources' to 'defining URIs', what's the difference?


 From HTTPBis p2-semantics-09 section-7.5 | POST:
   'If a resource has been created on the origin server, the response
    SHOULD be 201 (Created) and contain an entity which describes the
    status of the request and refers to the new resource, and a Location
    header (see Section 9.4).'

5: No mention of creating multiple resources / defining multiple URIs, 
thus is this allowed or not (must, must not, should, should not etc)

6: If the answer to question 5 above is in favour of allowing several 
resources to be created (or URIs to be defined) then request 
clarification of questions 2 and 3 in relation to POST as well.


 From HTTPBis p2-semantics-09 section-6.1 | Identifying the Resource 
Associated with a Representation:
    '3.  If the response has a Content-Location header, and that URI is
        the same as the request-URI [[TODO-missref-requri: (see [ref])]],
        the response is a representation of the resource at the request-
        URI.'

7: Is the mapping between resource and representation always 1-1 at a 
given instant, or as indicated by content negotiation might the mapping 
be 1-Many?

8: With server side content negotiation implemented over the Accept 
header, and where the origin-server does not define a per representation 
unique URI for direct access to each representation that is returned, 
then are all representations considered to be representations of the 
resource at the identified request URI?

9: Can one use PUT on a request URI which responds with multiple 
representations (for instance different serializations of the same data) 
where the Content-Location is always the same as the request URI?


 From HTTPBis p2-semantics-09 section-7.7 | DELETE:
   'The DELETE method requests that the origin server delete the
    resource identified by the request-target.'

10: Multiple possibly obvious-by-now questions that all fall under two 
points:
  (a) Is an origin-server free to DELETE the other URIs that were defined
      when the resource identified by the request-target was created?
  (b) depending on (a) - If multiple URIs are defined on PUT, how does
      one DELETE those URIs if they are unknown to the client/creator?
  (c) given questions 7-9 and assuming that the mapping between resource
      and representation is 1-Many, then [ can | should | must ] all
      representations be DELETEd when the identified resource is?


I think that covers everything I need, (apologies if needed!)

Best,

Nathan
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 12:04:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:20 GMT