W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: Issues remaining with Bind draft

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:39:20 -0800
Message-Id: <9014A50E-7DC2-11D8-9DC8-000A95B2BB72@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>


On Mar 24, 2004, at 9:55 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Ted Hardie wrote:
>
>> For the custom live properties, could PROPPATCH have an effect that 
>> affects only
>> the binding address (as noted below, implementations MAY define 
>> custom live
>> properties which have different values on different bindings)?
>
> Nope, and I absolutely disagree that live properties may vary 
> depending on access path.

I believe servers have already been implemented and deployed where the 
live property can vary depending on access path.  For example, in order 
to continue to maintain backward compatibility for a custom property 
called "parent-path", the server would have to implement bindings in 
such a way that "parent-path" was calculated from the request address.

>
>> I'm trying to work through the implications of this, and having a bit 
>> of trouble.
>> Does this imply that a method generating this must be applied both to 
>> the
>> binding against which it was targeted and against some other binding 
>> to test
>> this?  or does it imply some mechanism of indicating that a property 
>> is
>> capable fo divergence?  In the second case, how is that 
>> discovered/stored?
>
> There must not be any divergence.

I should have been more clear in my original text.  What I meant was 
that when a new live property is specified (e.g. in an Internet-Draft / 
RFC), the specification should indicate if the live property may have 
different values on different bindings.  Otherwise, the assumption is 
that the live property must have the same value on all bindings.  
Similarly, when a new report is specified, readers may assume that it 
behaves the same on all bindings, unless the specification says 
otherwise.

I never envisioned a need or utility in having clients apply methods to 
multiple bindings to test this.  I did envision a mechanism to indicate 
that a property may diverge on different bindings, but I propose this 
should be in the specification where the property is defined.  So there 
are no issues for discovery/storage.

>
> > ...
>
> Regards, Julian
>
>
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2004 16:48:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:51 UTC