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: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:07:17 +0200
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMEJJFKAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 11:19 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> Subject: RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253
>
>
> Note: This precondition actually violates the requirement
> earlier in the text that a server support cyclic bindings.

I wasn't aware off that being a requirement. I see why a server that *does*
support cyclic bindings need to signal them upon depth infinity operations
(-> 506), but why would you want to require support for their creation?

Actually, I'm tempted to require servers to detect cyclic bindings upon
creation and to reject those requests. What's the use case for cyclic
bindings?

> But probably a server should be allowed to reject cyclic
> bindings, so I'm happy to add this pre-condition (and remove
> the current requirement), if nobody objects.

BTW: this precondition applies to all namespace-manipulating operations (a
MOVE of a collection may fail for the same reason).

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Saturday, 26 October 2002 05:07:32 GMT

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