W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: The document's address

From: Nicholas Shanks <nickshanks@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 16:10:48 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+hEJVU_=UFZZLv9zHfz0dVXaVkVX3RzKDbvBKHD03eOt5iXsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: IETF HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 8 March 2013 15:42, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> That implies a concept of hierarchical ownership that simply does not exist
> in HTTP. It might for some servers, but there's no guarantee.

Can you provide an example (make one up) where ownership cannot be
defined as hierarchical and accumulative?

I am suggesting that HTTP's concept of "ownership" (for purposes of
replacing cache entries) be defined by the specs to be hierarchical,
since if I own / and I want to sabotage /subdir/ all I have to do is
log in to the server and replace/delete it.

-- 
Nicholas.
Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 16:12:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 16:12:05 GMT