RE: WG Last Call: Advanced Collections Requirements

Thanks for your comments.  I agree that we need to make clear that
references are to resources, not to locations.

The problem about what we mean by direct references is a more difficult
one.  It certainly needs to be thought through more carefully than it
has been so far.

One approach that we could take is to stay with a very strict definition
of direct reference: one for which no operations are passed through to
the target.  Then treat direct and indirect references as marking the
ends of a continuum, where in between are references for which some
operations are passed through.  We could require that the protocol be
able to represent direct references, indirect references, or anything in
between (be able to say which operations will be passed through for any
particular reference).

Or we might be able to reach consensus on one or a small set of
reference types that are really useful and must be supported by the
protocol (not necessarily by servers).  Indirect references are
certainly useful.  Maybe another useful type of reference passes through
these operations:

	PROPFIND
	PROPPATCH
	PUT
	GET
	POST
	HEAD
	DELETE
	MOVE
	COPY

But does not pass through:

	Any operation on the parent collection
	MKREF
	DELREF

A third useful type of reference might pass through:

	PROPFIND
	PROPPATCH
	PUT
	GET
	POST
	HEAD

But not pass through:

	DELETE
	MOVE
	COPY
	Any operation on the parent collection
	MKREF
	DELREF

Judith A. Slein
Xerox Corporation
jslein@crt.xerox.com
(716)422-5169
800 Phillips Road 105/50C
Webster, NY 14580


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaron Goland [mailto:yarong@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 9:22 PM
> To: slein@wrc.xerox.com
> Subject: RE: WG Last Call: Advanced Collections Requirements
> 
>      3.1.5  Operations on a target resource do not affect 
> references to it
>             except as needed to enforce referential integrity.
> 
> The last sentence of the last paragraph of section 3.1.5 
> states that "For
> example, if the target of a strong reference is moved, the 
> reference must
> change to reflect the new location of the target." I realize 
> it isn't a
> "MUST" but a "must" however I am concerned by this statement. 
> When I create
> a strong reference am I referencing a particular resource or 
> a particular
> location? If I am referencing a resource then having the 
> strong reference
> change when the resource is moved makes sense. However if I 
> am referencing a
> location then nothing but a DELETE should cause the strong 
> reference to
> change. A MOVE, of course, is defined as a COPY followed by a 
> DELETE, so it
> would seem that moving a resource on a strong location 
> reference should
> result in the strong reference's deletion.
> 
> I think it would be acceptable to specify that references 
> only refer to
> resources not locations but I believe there really should be some
> clarification on the point.
> 
>      3.1.15 Operations on a direct reference, except for creation and
>             deletion of the reference itself, are passed 
> through to its
>             target resource.
> 
> There are obvious problems with this rule for operations such 
> as COPY and
> MOVE of the parent collection. I think language is needed to 
> call out the
> fact that a direct reference is still a reference and thus 
> certain methods,
> especially COPY and MOVE, may not be passed through but 
> rather will effect
> the reference directly.
> 
> 			Yaron
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Whitehead [mailto:ejw@ics.uci.edu]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 4:00 PM
> > To: WEBDAV WG
> > Subject: WG Last Call: Advanced Collections Requirements
> > 
> > 
> > *** WORKING GROUP LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS ***
> > 
> > ADVANCED COLLECTIONS REQUIREMENTS
> > 
> > Requirements for advanced collections capability within 
> > WebDAV have been
> > discussed at length on the mailing list, and at three 
> > successive WebDAV
> > face-to-face meetings.  It is my opinion as Chair that this 
> > document is
> > ready for final review, followed by submission to the IESG 
> > for approval as
> > an Informational RFC.
> > 
> > This is the final call for comments from the working group on 
> > the document,
> > "Requirements for Advanced Collection Functionality in 
> > WebDAV", by Judith
> > Slein and Jim Davis, <draft-ietf-webdav-collection-reqts-02>. 
> >  This last
> > call for comments period begins immediately, and ends Sunday, 
> > August 30, at
> > midnight Pacific time.  This allows over 3 weeks for 
> > comments, including the
> > opportunity to make comments at the Chicago IETF meeting.
> > 
> > At the end of the last call period, a new draft will be issued
> > (revision -03), containing any changes based on comments 
> > received during the
> > working group last call period.  Unless there are significant 
> > technical
> > problems raised with this document during the last call 
> > period, I intend to
> > submit the -03 draft to the Internet Engineering Steering 
> > Group (IESG) for
> > approval as an Informational RFC.
> > 
> > Details on the procedures used to develop IETF documents can 
> > be found in RFC
> > 2026, which can be retrieved at:
> > 
> ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2026.txt
> 
> If there are any procedural questions or concerns, please do 
> not hesitate to
> contact me, or raise an issue on the list.
> 
> - Jim Whitehead
> Chair, IETF WEBDAV Working Group
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 August 1998 10:12:12 UTC