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

Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 21:55:09 +0100
Message-ID: <41B4C72D.8060700@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> Only if RFC2518bis is going to include the whole bindings specification, 
> or at least the resource-id property.  The reason why RFC2518 never 
> needed to answer this question definitively is because  clients had no 
> way of knowing when two URLs point to the same resource.  If clients 
> can't identify bindings, then there's no way to violate the client's 
> expectations around property values of two bindings to the same resource.

If it doesn't matter, why does RFC2518 say:

"Although implicit in [RFC2068] and [RFC2396], any resource, including 
collection resources, MAY be identified by more than one URI. For 
example, a resource could be identified by multiple HTTP URLs."

(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#rfc.section.5.1.p.4>) and

"A resource may be made available through more than one URI. However 
locks apply to resources, not URIs. Therefore a LOCK request on a 
resource MUST NOT succeed if can not be honored by all the URIs through 
which the resource is addressable."

(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#rfc.section.8.10.3>)?

> With the bindings specification, the client can detect multiple bindings 
> with 'resource-id', or for that matter the client may have used BIND.  
> So now that we have a spec describing how to identify and manipulate 
> bindings, that spec needs to be clear on what the client must expect 
> and/or what the server must do to meet expectations.

I think it's safe to say that we'll continue to disagree on this. 
Multiple bindings to the same resource are part of RFC2518, even if it 
doesn't define the additional features in BIND 
(creation/discovery/diagnostics). So if there is anything unclear, it 
needs to be resolved in RFC2518bis as well. In which case the question 
arises why it would ever be a good idea to do it in two distinct places 
unless we can be absolutely certain that both say the same thing.

Best regards, Julian
-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 6 December 2004 20:55:46 UTC

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