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

RE: REBIND and lock token submission example

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cs.ucsc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:15:40 -0800
Message-Id: <200412132015.iBDKFnUa007048@cats-mx3.ucsc.edu>
To: "'WebDAV \(WebDAV WG\)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>


Julian writes:

> REBIND /CollW/CollX HTTP/1.1
> If: (<L1>)
> Content-Type: application/xml
> 
> <rebind xmlns="DAV:">
>    <segment>CollA</segment>
>    <href>/CollW/CollY/CollZ</href>
> </rebind>

I've double-checked this, and believe it to be correct.


> Do we have consensus to add this example at all?

My recollection is that Lisa was in favor, and Geoff was neutral. Given that
we're talking about adding an example, and not additional requirements, my
recommendation is to consider this sufficient rough consensus, and add the
example.

> If so, would 
> it make sense to *replace* the REBIND example we already have 
> in section 6.1 
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-late
> st.html#rfc.section.6.1>)?

I'd say no -- having both examples makes sense, since the first one is
relatively simple, and the second one is more complex.

I'd also recommend adding text to the example description along the lines of
"The binding between CollZ and C1 creates a loop in the containment
hierarchy. Servers are not required to support such loops, though the server
in this example does."

The reason for this is to ensure that implementors aren't accidentally left
with the impression they must implement loop-causing bindings.

- Jim
Received on Monday, 13 December 2004 20:16:25 UTC

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