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

RE: Bind issues

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:57:42 -0800
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002f01c3b90e$8bf4c1e0$75c990c6@lisalap>

> 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.

How so?

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

RFC2518bis implicitly included the concept that files had previous
versions (that you just couldn't happen to know about or view).
Still, when DeltaV added versions, it was reasonable and right
to add requirements on how servers supporting DeltaV had to MOVE
and COPY resources with versions.

The difference is that before the bindings work, bindings could
exist but weren't standardized.  One major goal of standardizing
a feature ought to be to ensure that it works the same in different

So, if the bindings draft leaves it optional to servers how to 
apply LOCK to multiple bindings, then it's my opinion that the 
bindings draft needs to be fixed.  Even if we believe that the
required behavior is implicit in GULP, I'd like to see it spelled
out in the bindings proposal to minimize confusion and implementation

Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 14:57:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:28 UTC