W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2006

RE: Atomic MOVE vs BIND spec, was: Comments on the "new" 2518

From: John Barone <jbarone@xythos.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 09:30:26 -0800
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "'Geoffrey M Clemm'" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, "'Kevin Wiggen'" <kwiggen@xythos.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, <w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NSNOVPS00411uVZWGqj00000dde@NSNOVPS00411.nacio.xythos.com>

Well, I still don't see mixing and matching methods from various specs. as a
coherent way of addressing the notion of atomicity (all-or-nothing behavior)
in this spec. 2518-bis.  But, that's neither here nor there; the bottom line
is that Xythos seems to be the only ones who feel that this is a useful
addition to the spec., so I'll let this drop as well.

-John 

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 10:42 AM
To: John Barone
Cc: 'Geoffrey M Clemm'; 'Kevin Wiggen'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org;
w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Subject: Atomic MOVE vs BIND spec, was: Comments on the "new" 2518

John Barone wrote:
>> Again, what's wrong with REBIND? You can implement REBIND without
> implementing
>> anything else in the BIND spec. For that matter, you'd probably want 
>> to
> implement
>> UNBIND as well (as DELETE shares the non-atomic properties with MOVE).
> 
> I don't understand what's proposed here.
> 
> Are you proposing that we leave the 2518-bis spec. silent on this 
> matter, and simply implement pieces of the binding spec. to provide this
capability?

Exactly.

> If so, that doesn't make any sense to me, since what we're really 
> talking about is a different spec. with different requirements.  The 
> way I see it, that has no bearing on this spec. or this discussion.

Well, both specs are discussed here, and both are supposed to be submitted
to the IESG at roughly the same time.

> If instead you're proposing that we add a method REBIND to this spec., 
> with an appropriate definition; my concern is that REBIND has a 
> specific meaning that's fleshed out by the context provided in the 
> binding spec., but that meaning doesn't translate to the 2518-bis 
> spec., where we're talking about MOVEs, COPYs, and DELETEs, not BINDs,
UNBINDs, and REBINDs.

That seems to be a very theoretical argument, unless you can show exactly
how REBIND isn't what you need...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 17:30:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:14 GMT