W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 1999

Advanced Collections-04 Review

From: <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 15:32:29 -0400
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <852567D6.006B7708.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>

Here's my review of the advanced collections spec 04. I tried to keep my
comments based on the order of the spec to uncover anything a new reader might
have trouble with. This is a nice piece of work. In particular, the BIND method
seems to be just what we need. However, redirect references still seem pretty
complex and full of special cases. It would require doing an implementation to
root out all the detailed issues, but the specification as it stands is pretty
close to what we need in order to start implementing. Thanks to the authors for
all the hard work they put into this.

Last paragraph, section 3 Introduction: Might be helpful to say this
specification defines client specified, server maintained orderings. Its not
clear that the server is not supporting the ordering, only maintaining an
ordering given by a client.

4.1, second bullet: HTTP servers provide URI mappings, but no protocol for
specifying them. Must be done in server-dependent configuration and often
requires server restart.

Last bullet: making support for cross-server bindings optional does not
eliminate the referential integrity problem caused by disconnected servers. So a
server could support cross-server bindings sometimes, but not at other times if
the server is disconnected. Unfortunately, this is stateful and depends on
connectivity, not anything to with the bindings themselves. So referential
integrity could never be guaranteed, and either must be optional or cross-server
bindings must be prohibited.

4.2, 1st paragraph: aren't bindings a many-to-1 relationship between URI
mappings to resources? Can't a collection have more than one binding to the same
internal member? Note that the definition of internal member given in this
specification implies that a resource can be an internal member of more than one

Cross-server bindings: would it be acceptable to 1) refuse to delete a resource
that would create dangling references? 2) only delete the binding, and employ
some garbage collection algorithm (including leaving the garbage)? and/or 3)
delete the resource and all references if it can be known (through say reference
counts) that there are no other references? Should these suggestions be added to
the spec to indicate possible ways referential integrity could be maintained
across servers?

4.2.1 says that a Request-URI ending in a "/" must bind to a collection, but
does not indicate a Request-URI NOT ending in a "/" CAN bind to a collection

4.2.2 506 (Loop Detected) is a server error status code, but this is likely a
successful operation that clients mostly don't care about. Should be a 2xx
status code?

I had trouble making sense of section 4.2.3. What's a non-WebDAV collection or
non-WebDAV advanced collection? Where is domain name variant defined? What is
the authority part of a URL? Should step 4 be left to right? How is S bound to R
in step 4? Does this algorithm only apply to bindings whose destination is a

The example in 4.2.4 uses the destination URL not the request URL as specified
in 4.2.3. Are users expected to understand and use this algorithm in order to
know what is bound to what?

Section 4.2.5, 409 (Conflict): so the binding is only created for the right-most
path segment. All other collections in the path segment must already exist? BIND
doesn't create bindings for these path segments in their parent directory too?
In example 4.2.6, collection /~whitehead/dav/ must already exist? The bind
operation wouldn't create a binding for dav if it didn't already exist?

Example 4.2.7: the existence of / should not be required. The binding should
have been created although it is probably not what the user intended. In all
other cases, WebDAV behaves as if the / were present, and returns any URI's with
the / added. BIND should be consistent with this convention. In any case, this
error condition is not described in section 4.2.5.

Should section 8.6.1 of [WebDAV] be corrected so the last paragraph of 4.2.8
isn't necessary?

4.2.9, 2nd paragraph: if depth is specified for the COPY method, it must be
Depth: infinity. Depth: 0  or 1 is not allowed.

Section 4.2.10: The semantics of MOVE are fine, but they are different than
[WebDAV]. In this case, the resource is not moved at all, only bindings to the
resource are manipulated. The implication is that the resource is unchanged. Its
the same resource in the same physical storage location on the same server, etc.
This is not the case with [WebDAV], and may not be what was desired. Perhaps
there are two MOVE operations that need to be distinguished. Note that COPY
created R' while MOVE didn't. Another possible outcome for the example is that a
new resource is created R' which is a copy of R, and URI 1, URI 2, and URIX are
all bound to R'. All bindings to R are deleted. This interpretation is
consistent with [WebDAV]. Second to the last sentence in the last paragraph: ...
request-URI cannot be moved.

Section OK, we're in agreement. However, it is not clear what server
writers are required to do with implementation notes. It also seems the protocol
should not be specifying anything about implementation. Perhaps these two
sections can be replaced by one that specifies a logical move where either
implementation would be valid. Or, these are not equivalent logical operations
and clients may wish to distinguish them. (I don't think so though as the client
probably couldn't tell the difference).

Section 4.2.12: Seems to assume that all bindings have the same behavior if they
are bindings to the same resource. However, servers do special things with
non-WebDAV collection names (acting as functors) such as cgi-bin, servlet, etc.
In this case, different bindings to the same resource will behave very
differently. The 4th paragraph on PUT may not be possible due to the effect of
these functors.

Should we introduce a new DAV property that provides a GUID for each resource
that can act as an identifier for that resource? Then we can determine if two
bindings are to the same resource by examining a property. Note that just
because the contents and properties are the same for a pair of resources, this
does not mean they are the same resource.

4.2.13: If the optional DAV:bindings property exists for a resource, does it
have to contain ALL the bindings? Even those from other servers? Is this
optional on a server or resource basis?

4.3, last paragraph: the semantics of the Passthrough header seem to be
described in reverse. The last sentence of the last paragraph sounds like a
NoPassthrough header, not Passthrough. The default should be to return the
properties of the reference or return a 302. Why not return a 302 of the
Passthrough header is not present, and if it is present, it must be a
referencing-aware client and just do what the header says. "T" means Passthrough
to the target and don't return a 302. "F" means operate on the reference. Second
paragraph of 4.3.2 indicates the problem. The response to a PROPFIND
Depth:infinity on a collection containing redirect references returns 302 for
the redirect references, but also returns the DAV:resourcetype and DAV:location
properties (described as DAV:reftarget in section 4.3?) for the redirect
reference but no other properties. Seems like a lot of special cases. Could
using a three-state Passthrough header eliminate the special cases?

4.3.1 MKREF should use the Destination header like BIND. Operations involving
redirect references use a Location header. BIND uses Destination. MKREF uses
Ref-Target while the redirect reference has a DAV:reftarget property. These
should be normalized., 409: Examples that MAY produce a conflict include reference to a target
that does not exist on a server that does not support dangling references. This,
and similar server behavior needs to be part of the specification in order to
ensure interoperability.

4.3.3. Seems like COPY should just copy the redirect reference resource, just
like any other resource, and there should be no special cases. This looks like
its attempting to mix binding and redirect reference semantics on a case-by-case
basis. It will be too hard to explain and remember these semantics. So I don't
agree with "For a COPY request to a redirect reference, the expectation would be
a 203 response that the client could use to copy the target resource." The
client is made aware on a GET on the redirect reference that it is a redirect
reference. So on COPY, the client would expect to copy the redirect reference to
a new location, but have it redirect to the same target. The behavior of the
newly copied redirect reference is exactly the same as the old one. We shouldn't
special case methods based on resource type. I don't think the client would
expect a new, independent copy of the target resource because that's not what
was copied. An alternative would be to go ahead and copy the reference but still
return a 302 unless the Passthrough header was specified. If Passthrough is "T",
copy the target. If Passthrough is "F", copy the reference, same target, and no

4.3.4 Passthrough for DELETE isn't consistent with its use on other methods.
Passthrough : T should not generate a 302, it should delete the target resource
and the reference. Third paragraph: this is one interpretation of COPY and MOVE.
Another is given by GET, PUT, DELETE semantics. COPY is a GET followed by PUT to
the new destination. MOVE is a COPY followed by a DELETE of the source. In this
interpretation, these methods require no special cases. The semantics of
references should be independent of these implied implementation details.

4.3.6. This is too complicated and has too many special cases. If redirect
references are exposed as resources, then they should be treated like resources.
LOCK on a redirect reference should lock the reference. It should have no effect
on the target unless Passthrough is specified to "T". Then the target resource,
not the reference is locked. A locked reference can't have its properties
changed. In particular, one can't change its target. Or consider removing
redirect references from the spec.

5.2.1, last paragraph: DAV:orderingtype should be optional. Missing
DAV:orderingtype is equivalent to DAV:unordered. This would be more compatible
with existing servers, and simpler.

5.4. What happens to requests that occur between changing the DAV:orderingtype
and the ORDERPATCH method? Won't the ordering be incorrect?

6.4 Passthrough "T" should not return a 302, but instead should operate directly
on the target resource. The client is already referencing aware (or wouldn't
have used the header), and has expressed his intent to operate on the target not
the reference. The server should do the operation without requiring another
round trip. Also, Passthrough: T and no Passthrough header do the same thing.

6.6: perhaps it should be an error to adding a binding to a collection with a
client-maintained ordering and the Position header is not specified. Putting the
resource at the end seems a bit arbitrary. See section 8.4: If the collection
has a custom ordering type, how do we know any given client will add resources
in the desired order? Requiring the Position header at least makes the client
think about ordering. But the result looks pretty useless as there is no way to
ensure the client ordering semantics are followed.

7.1 loop detected should be a 2xx status code, not an 506 which indicates an
internal server error. Loops aren't errors.

11.1 indicates a resource that provides resource sharing MUST support both
bindings and redirect references while the next sentence indicates an OPTIONS
request MUST indicate which of these capabilities the resource supports. Aren't
bindings and redirect references independent? Couldn't a server support either
one or both?
Received on Monday, 23 August 1999 15:34:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:51 GMT