W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: [Bug 2] Bindings needs to completely describe how bindings interact with locks.

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:46:26 -0800
Message-Id: <1e71f7300a8e350572d66b4600ff4f67@osafoundation.org>
Cc: WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Jan 28, 2005, at 12:58 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> By the way, I agree with this wording. I would be even happier if it 
>> also required the server to allow LOCK on any binding to refresh the 
>> lock already existing. Can we add that?
>
> In theory, we *can* state everything that is correct. In practice, the 
> set of additional statements we can make is infinite, so it would be 
> nice if you could describe why anyone would come to the impression 
> that LOCK refresh is in any way different than other methods.

I really don't see where you're getting the "in practice the set is 
infinite" conclusion.  In theory it's infinite, but in practice it's 
finite.  All the issues that I currently consider unresolved were 
raised over six months ago.

There are only three bugs open on Bind in bugzilla:
  - http://ietf.webdav.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2 -- this was 
raised in an email sent Nov 18 2003 ("Bindings and GULP again") and 
also raised March 17 2004 ("Issues remaining with the Bind draft")
  - http://ietf.webdav.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71-- this was 
raised Nov 30 2004 ("Bindings and Permissions") but it's only an 
elaboration of an issue raised March 18 2004 ("Should REBIND preserve 
locks, other live properties")
  - http://ietf.webdav.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5 -- this was 
raised March 17 2004 ("Issues remaining with the Bind draft") -- 
however I suggest we resolve this by explicitly saying in Bind that the 
interactions with DeltaV remain undefined.

We're also currently discussing an issue recently re-raised by Brian, 
on how ETags might behave with multiple bindings, but on some 
investigation I see it was originally raised March 22 2004 ("Re: Issues 
remaining with the Bind draft")

Now that I review the email history here I see only three more issues 
that I think are still unresolved:
  - What event does creationdate refer to (creation of binding A, B or 
resource): raised March 17 2004 ("Issues remaining with the Bind 
draft")
  - Does REBIND change the getlastmodified or getetag property values: 
raised  March 17 2004 ("Issues remaining with the Bind draft")
  - How does copying bindings work: raised March 24 2004 ("COPY of a 
binding onto another binding of same resource")

Far from being infinite, no substantively new issues have been added to 
this list since March of 2004.   Adding text to resolve all these 
issues could take as much as a page added to the Bind spec and then 
we'd be done (as far as I'm concerned) and we'd have a good spec.

Lisa

(BTW I'll open new bugs to track the three issues I listed last -- 
unless I've overlooked some resolution, of course )
Received on Friday, 28 January 2005 17:46:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:07 GMT