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

BIND issue 2.3_copy_example, was: Comments on bind-08

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 21:09:48 +0100
Message-ID: <41AF768C.5090301@gmx.de>
To: ejw@cs.ucsc.edu
CC: "'WebDAV (WebDAV WG)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Jim Whitehead wrote:
>>Which of the open issues below can be closed now?
>>
>><http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-lates
>>t.html#rfc.issue.2.3_copy_depth_infinity>
> 
> 
> This can be closed.
> 
> 
>><http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-lates
>>t.html#rfc.issue.2.3_copy_vs_loops>
> 
> 
> This can be closed.

Thanks, done 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html> 
updated accordingly).

>><http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-lates
>>t.html#rfc.issue.2.3_copy_example>
> 
> 
> I'm still not 100% sure what cases this is intended to cover. My
> interpretation is that it covers (a) the target of a loopback binding, as
> well as (b) the case where there are multiple bindings to the same resource.
> We currently have an example for (a) and not (b).
> 
> I'd like to see the following example added to address this shortcoming.
> 
> Given the following collection hierarchy:
> 
> +------------------+
> | Root Collection  |
> |  bindings:       |
> |  CollX           
> +------------------+
>    |            
>    |  
>    |                 
> +----------------+ 
> | Collection C1  | 
> | bindings:      | 
> | x.gif    y.gif | 
> +----------------+
>    |         |        
>    |         |    
>  +-------------+   
>  | Resource R1 |    
>  +-------------+
> 
> A COPY of /CollX with Depth infinity to /CollY results in the following
> collection hierarchy:
> 
> +------------------+
> | Root Collection  |
> |  bindings:       |
> |  CollX     CollY |
> +------------------+
>    |              \
>    |               \
>    |                \           
> +----------------+  +-----------------+
> | Collection C1  |  | Collection C2   |
> | bindings:      |  | bindings:       |
> | x.gif    y.gif |  | x.gif     y.gif |
> +----------------+  +-----------------+
>    |         |          |         |
>    |         |          |         |
>  +-------------+      +-------------+
>  | Resource R1 |      | Resource R2 |
>  +-------------+      +-------------+
> 
> 
> Assuming that those are the only two cases intended to be covered, the
> addition of this example would close this issue.

I do agree that this the other case the text covers, and that our 
example currently doesn't show it explicitly (it does show it somehow 
for the collection resource binding structure being re-created, but 
people may be be aware because this also illustrates the bind loop 
behaviour).

Any objections to *not* adding a new example, but just adding a second 
binding to y.gif to the example in 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.section.2.3.1>?

Best regards, Julian



-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2004 20:10:25 UTC

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