W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: Bind issues

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:21:14 +0100
Message-ID: <3FCCE62A.7090902@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> I don't think that adding any text to RFC2518bis will fix the problem in the
> bind draft.  It's not clear RFC2518bis will finish soon, or if it does, 
> what status it will have, or how bindings will depend on it.  Unless the
> bindings draft waits on RFC2518bis to finish, it needs to stand on its
> own in this respect.

Well, we've talked about that many times before, but anyway...

BIND does *not* introduce the concept on bindings (multiple URIs mapped 
to the same resource). This concept already exists implicitly in 
RFC2616, RFC2518 and RFC3253. In RFC3253, some operations even 
implicitly create possibly multiple bindings.

So if RFC2518bis doesn't already fully explain how locking and multiple 
URI mappings interact, it's RFC2518bis that is incomplete.

All the BIND spec adds is

- a method to explicitly create new bindings
- new methods in addition to MOVE/DELETE which are more clearly defined 
in how they interact with multiple bindings (so avoiding changing the 
semantics of MOVE/DELETE if a server implementer doesn't want to do that)
- error marshalling extensions
- discovery of the "other" bindings to a resource, detecting whether to 
URIs identify the same resource.

But again, the BIND draft does *not* introduce the concept itself. It's 
been here all the time,

> (As I've already said, I think all the language from GULP *is* in 
> RFC2518bis.  I may have missed something and I'm happy to have it pointed
> out, but due to the dependency issue, whether or not that's complete or
> agreed upon may not be relevant to bindings status)

Regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 14:21:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:05 GMT