W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2002

FW: [Moderator Action] WebDAV WG minutes

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:11:13 -0800
To: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Accidentally caught by the spam filter. I have added <ldusseault@xythos.com> to the accept2 list.

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:ldusseault@xythos.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:47 PM
To: minutes@ietf.org; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: [Moderator Action] WebDAV WG minutes

Minutes from WebDAV WG meeting
March 19, 2002
53rd IETF, Minneapolis
Reported by Larry Masinter, Adobe

Chair present: Lisa Dusseault, Xythos

Status of Various Efforts

DeltaV: The DeltaV working group is closed, however issues are
still being discussed actively on the working group mailing list.
No interop events are planned as yet.

Q: Any clients for DeltaV? TeamStream (Xythos web file client) is a
very limited client. Might assume that server vendors have
clients. SubVersion has a client, but will only work with SubVersion
for a while.

Interop Plans: WebDAV to Draft Standard requires demonstration
of interoperability of various features between independent
implementations. First interop was last August, another last fall,
want to start again this spring.

Suggestion from Brotsky: schedule rolling, round-robin, server 
interops, e.g., server-client pair have dates for focus on interop 
issues. Match servers with clients every month. Some folks were 

Access control: in last call. Some discussion of special-purpose
principal search reports. 

DASL draft: Revived in WebDAV WG rather than defunct DASL WG.  Julian
Reschke planning 2 separate drafts. The framework draft will cover the
model and the request/response syntax.
A separate mailing list exists for DASL, but some comments are 
mirrored on the WebDAV mailing list. Search framework issues: 
character comparison, how to discover what search arbiter to search 
namespace portion, what are search arbiters? Not special resources. 
Is any collection a potential search arbiter? Need for "more results" 

Issue: there is some overlap of issues between DASL and XML Query. 
However, XML Query doesn't handle marshalling, for example. 
Coordination between DASL and XML is needed.
Query: member of XML Query working group will review DASL.

Individual drafts related to WebDAV:

- tickets (proposal to support tickets for access control by
  unnamed users)
- quota (proposal to expose 2 named properties to handle
  quota on collections: size and quota limit in bytes)
- property datatypes
  Proposal to W3C to do XML element datatyping, predated
  XML schemas
- Ordering

Long list of dead drafts & proposals
  either dead or sleeping
  - bindings, redirect references, ordered collections,
   property registration proposal, property namespace and
   allprop, use of dublin core metadata in dav,
   additional webdav ...
   (take from slide)

comment: since drafts expire after 6 months, these proposals are dead unless

Issue of differing use models driving WebDAV development in different
 - use WebDAV as a file system. 
 - Use to work on local repository and publish/share to WebDAV. 
 - Synchronized use model, work on local store and sync, work from any
machine, online or offline.
 - Acrobat use webdav repositories for annotations when not for the
documents themselves.  
 - Webdav for Web Site authoring and not for much for file sharing.

Some evidence: webdav getting more interest from PC users, increasing
press. WebDAV tutorial at AIIM (document & content management folks).
Many document management tutorials. Article in PC magazine.

RFC 2518bis (potentially) closed issues

For moving to Draft, need two independent interoperable
implementations of every feature: two clients & two servers for each

Use and meaning of allprop? If allprop doesn't mean "all properties"
what does it mean? Proposal: all properties defined in 2518 plus all
dead properties client sets, but not live properties defined in other
drafts. This has already been put into practice by servers, and that 
wasn't an issue at the interop event.

Who controls lock owner field? Client does.  If a server-controlled
field is needed, this will have to be done in a separate draft, not
in RFC2518 bis.

When to refresh a lock timeout? Nobody implemented what the document
said. New model: only a lock refresh request refreshes the lock.

Where root of repository may be? Some clients couldn't handle
servers where path elements that aren't webdav resources.
Some servers couldn't do what some clients wanted. This has
been clarified, in http://host/a/b/c/d, http://host/a/b might
not be a webdav resource.

lock-null resources were removed from the spec. Most of the 
complex lock-null features weren't being used. A simpler model
of creating a locked empty regular resource seems to be 
interoperable, it even work with clients that can lock unmapped URLs.

Removed propertybehavior feature.

Open issues in RFC2518bis

If header

Don't know what to do with the 'if' header.
Ambiguities in the specification lead to clients not
implementing complex behavior. The syntax doesn't support 
multiline values, which could mean problems when large
header values must appear all in one header.  

E.g. IIS5 locks only resources, not collections, which 
results in many more locks in some situations.  Operating 
on a collection containing many locked resources requires 
specifying different tagged lock tokens for each resource
in If header.  This results in such header length that web
intermediaries cause problems.

How to apply with Depth and Destination headers?

"If" header confuses two purposes:
 - conditional which clients requires to be met
 - provision of lock token, which server requires to be there
Implementations seem to be more forgiving than spec suggests.
Can we demonstrate use or interoperability for
Tagged production? boolean combination logic support?
Use of ETags in "If" header?

Proposal: only use "if" header for a list of lock tokens.

Possible fix: add a header that does only one thing well,
comma-delimited lock tokens?

Possible fix: describe current behavior of the if header, and leave it
at that.

Dirk: If no-one is using the original if-header as originally
specified: it's like there are two 'if' headers, maybe would allow
existing syntax that clients use to be continue to be used, but in a
more liberal way.

This is one of the thorniest issues.

Source Property

Another remaining issue: with the 'source' property. Have there
been any implementations?  (appears to be none)

Proposal: remove 'source' property
Those against this proposal (not present but their arguments were
recapped) say that one can't use WebDAV for what it was originally 
intended to do, without source property
Those against this proposal fall into two camps.
1: source property is fine, we just need to put ourselves out to 
demonstrate interoperability.
2: source is not fine, let's use replacement that actually works
Does the source property actually works? One known problem with 
source property: 2518 doesn't define how to present and describe 
multiple sources

Brief discussion of using (Microsoft) Translate header. It's a boolean
flag in a header.  What it really means is "I'm in authoring mode" or
"I'm in browsing mode".   If header is missing, browser is assumed.

"Translate: F" when present asks for source rather than result.  This
is included in all authoring client requests.  

Although Translate doesn't handle multiple source files directly 
either, it's possible that it addresses scenarios that are required to be

May have some advantages.  For example, since it's present on all 
requests, the server can infer other preferences like 
'PROPFIND returns size of original files'.
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 16:39:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:25 UTC