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

Re: BIND and access control lists

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 11:36:35 -0800
Message-Id: <4e565dcc2d8dc53a996627c438b4cd67@osafoundation.org>
Cc: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>

This is fine with me for BIND, and I think the same is also true of 


On Feb 3, 2005, at 5:18 AM, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:

> The statement that would be consistent with 3744 would be
> "BIND is the same as MOVE with respect to the DAV:acl property".
> (I prefer to state it that way, rather than copying the
> paragraphs from 3744, since that allows us to modify
> DAV:acl behavior in 3744bis without having to revise the
> binding specification).
> If nobody objects to that behavior, then I am happy to add
> that sentence to the BIND specification.
> If anyone objects to that behavior, then that is an issue
> against 3744, and then I believe the BIND specification
> should remain silent on the topic, and the issue should be raised
> against 3744 for resolution.
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> Joe wrote on 02/03/2005 02:07:52 AM:
>> Trying to predict what the IESG might latch on to during their last
>> call.
>> I understand that DAV:acl is a property, which applies to the 
>> resource,
>> not the URL.  The suggestion has been made that MOVE has the same
>> issue, but 3744 gives explicit requirements for MOVE and COPY, which
>> differ slightly.  I don't know the history of 3744, but I assume that
>> there needed to be text for section 7.3 and 7.4 since it wasn't 
>> obvious
>> what would happen to acl's in the face of those operations.
>> I could imagine an IESG member who knew about the entire suite of
>> protocols asking for the draft that added a new operation specifying
>> how that operation fits into that suite.  I would expect that a line
>> saying "BIND is the same as MOVE with respect to acl's", "BIND is the
>> same as COPY with respect to acl's", or a paragraph on the same lines
>> as 7.3 or 7.4 from 3744 would be enough to answer that question.
>> -- 
>> Joe Hildebrand
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 19:36:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:31 UTC