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

BIND issue 2.6_when_do_ids_change, was: Comments on bind-08

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:22:07 +0100
Message-ID: <41B0222F.90008@gmx.de>
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
CC: ejw@cs.ucsc.edu, "'WebDAV (WebDAV WG)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org

Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> 
> Jim wrote on 12/01/2004 03:16:02 PM:
> 
>  > Geoff writes:
>  >    I'm OK with adding this as the form of an example, i.e., in 
> section 2.6,
>  >    after the sentence stating that new resources get new 
> resource-id's, we
>  >    could say that "for example, when a new version resource is 
> created, it
>  >    receives a new resource-id".
>  >
>  > That's fine with me, and let's mention VCRs while we're at it.
> 
> Now that's a more interesting topic (:-).
> 
> When you use the VERSION-CONTROL method with a specified Version,
> one could interpret that as just restoring that resource, as opposed
> to creating a new resource.  I can imagine repository vendors having strong
> (contradictory :-) opinions on that topic, so I'd suggest maintaining
> a discrete silence on that topic for now (and if it needs to be resolved,
> do so in the RFC-3253bis, and not in the binding specification).

Checking 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#determining.whether.two.bindings.are.to.the.same.resource>...: 
can I close the issue after making the editorial changes and replacing 
MOVE by REBIND? That is, do we need to mention MOVE here? If yes, any 
suggested text?

Best regards, Julian


-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 3 December 2004 08:22:44 UTC

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