On 8 March 2013 08:15, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2013-03-08 17:10, Nicholas Shanks wrote: > >> 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? >> > > Pretty much any server that is backed by a content management system where > ACLs can be set on individual resources. > > We have this exact issue for push in HTTP/2.0. The solution is to require the server to understand the ownership structure of all the resources that it serves and to enforce any constraints as necessary. That's a fairly fundamental change to the expectations and responsibilities around routing and ownership. Clearly there are cases where this is difficult for a server. We have text on the subject, but more feedback is always welcome. We certainly do not make any assumptions about a hierarchical structure to ownership. That's the server's business. --Martin
Received on Friday, 8 March 2013 19:30:55 UTC