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

RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 22:54:46 +0200
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "DeltaV \(E-mail\)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCAEJBFKAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253Geoff,

thanks. I think I've got at least one other precondition:

DAV:bind-loops-allowed

(explanation: we don't want the server to produce a 5xx error code for this
case)

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
  Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 10:46 PM
  To: DeltaV (E-mail); w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
  Subject: RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253


  It looks like we have finally narrowed down this thread to
  one issue for 3253, which I've added as 14.4_CLARIFY_VH_DELETE_2
  (i.e. can you delete the stable binding to a version history
  or version, if there are other bindings).  Any discussion of
  14.4_CLARIFY_VH_DELETE_2 should be mailed to the deltav mailing
  list, not to the general webdav mailing list.

  For the binding spec, Julian asks for two new preconditions
  for BIND, which I will go ahead and add, unless someone objects
  (they both seem reasonable to me).  Any discussion of these two
  new preconditions for BIND should be mailed to the general
  webdav mailing list.

  Cheers,
  Geoff


  -----Original Message-----
  From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]

  ...
  The issue here is that if we allow a DELETE to fail because other bindings
  exist, a client may never be able to delete a binding (because due to race
  conditions, there will always be additional bindings left). I'm not saying
  that this can be avoided, however it *really* sounds ugly. As I said, I
  haven't seen a convincing argument why we need this restriction in RFC3253
  (and yes, this discussion should be moved to the other mailing list).

  > Can we agree that servers can reject DELETE/MOVE requests and move the
  > versioning specific discussion to the versioning mailing list?

  Yes. Still, we may have to define additional precondition values for

  - resource does not support additional bindings
  - new member name can't be used (in deltav: because it was already used
for
  a stable URI)

  Julian

  --
  <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 16:55:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:02 GMT