W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2000

RE: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.MrIntegrity

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@Rational.Com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:57:46 -0500
Message-ID: <65B141FB11CCD211825700A0C9D609BC01D4D7B2@chef.lex.rational.com>
To: "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I propose that we delete all uses of the term "integrity" from
the spec, and instead say:

RFC 2518 allows resource deletion requests, such as DELETE and MOVE,
to do a "best effort" deletion on collections, where only some of
the members of the collection are deleted following the request.

In order to guarantee the more predictable BIND/UNBIND semantics when a
binding
unaware client is used to do authoring on a binding aware server,
a binding aware server is required to map deletion requests into the
appropriate UNBIND request.

More formally: If a DELETE request, MOVE request, or a request with an
Overwrite:T header is applied to a resource identified by the URL
/path/x, and /path identifies a collection that supports the BIND/UNBIND
methods, then the request MUST have the same effect as an UNBIND of x from
/path.
In particular, if the request succeeds, the binding named x MUST be removed
from the collection indentified by /path, and whether or not the request
succeeds, no other bindings from any other collection may be removed.

As a corollary to this rule, if a DELETE request, MOVE request,
or a request with an Overwrite:T header is applied to a collection
identified by the URL /path1, then a resource identified by the URL
/path1/path2/path3 MUST NOT be deleted if /path1/path2 supports the
BIND/UNBIND operation.

Cheers,
Geoff


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Yaron Goland
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 8:49 PM
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.MrIntegrity


The last sentence of the last paragraph of section 4 reads "Implementations
MUST ensure the integrity of bindings." Similar language is used in the
second paragraph of section 5.1. However the term "integrity" was never well
defined inside of the specification. As such it is impossible to comply with
this requirement in an interoperable way. I would strongly caution against
attempting to specify the definition for integrity, English is much too
inexact a language for such an attempt to be successful.
        As such, I move that both sentences be removed and be replaced with
a series of statements that define, in exact language, the requirements that
are to be represented by the term "integrity", each sentence properly
qualified with a MUST.
Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2000 13:59:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:54 GMT