W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: various BIND issues

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:29:30 -0500
To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF7FC10F81.6CD7BA63-ON85257391.005A4D8D-85257391.005A97E2@us.ibm.com>
All of the changes described below are fine with me.

Cheers,
Geoff

w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 11/11/2007 02:52:16 PM:

> 
> (see 
> <http://www.webdav.org/bind/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.
> issue.2.1.1-bind-loops>)
> 
> This is a simple clarification: when talking first about the potential 
> of bind loops (cycles), state that a server is free to reject requests 
> that would create them.
> 
> Proposal to add:
> 
> "Support for loops is OPTIONAL: servers MAY reject requests that would 
> lead to the creation of a bind loop (see DAV:cycle-allowed precondition 
> defined in Section 4)."
> 
> to the end of Section 2.1.1.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 


w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 11/11/2007 03:21:05 PM:

> 
> (see 
> <http://www.webdav.org/bind/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.
> issue.2.1.1-cycles>)
> 
> While fixing the other issues, it occurred to me that we never introduce 

> the term "cycle".
> 
> Proposal to change the first sentence of 2.1.1 to:
> 
> "Bindings to collections can result in loops ("cycles"), which servers 
> MUST detect when processing "Depth: infinity" requests."
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 


w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 11/11/2007 03:14:42 PM:

> 
> (see 
> <http://www.webdav.org/bind/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.
> issue.4-precondition-language>)
> 
> It seems that the way we use the precondition terminology is confusing 
> when we actually talk about OPTIONAL features (I think we had the same 
> problem with RFC3744).
> 
> So for the definitions of DAV:cross-server-binding and 
> DAV:cycle-allowed, I'd like to add one explanatory sentence:
> 
>       (DAV:cross-server-binding): If the resource identified by the 
> DAV:href element in the request body is on another server from the 
> collection identified by the Request-URI, the server MUST support 
> cross-server bindings (servers that do not support cross-server bindings 

> can use this condition code to signal the client exactly why the request 

> failed).
> 
>      (DAV:cycle-allowed): If the DAV:href element identifies a 
> collection, and if the Request-URI identifies a collection that is a 
> member of that collection, the server MUST support cycles in the URI 
> namespace (servers that do not support cycles can use this condition 
> code to signal the client exactly why the request failed).
> 
> (emphasis on the last sentences).
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 


w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 11/11/2007 03:53:56 PM:

> 
> (see 
> <http://www.webdav.org/bind/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.
> issue.2.5-move-creating-cycles>)
> 
> As this question comes up every now and then, I'd like to add the 
> example below, showing how a MOVE can cause a bind loop if collection 
> bindings are supported:
> 
> 2.5.2.  Example: MOVE request causing a bind loop
> 
>     Note that in the presence of collection bindings, a MOVE request can
>     cause the creating of a bind loop.
> 
>     Consider a the top level collections C1 and C2 with URIs "/CollW/"
>     and "/CollX/".  C1 also contains an additional binding named "CollY"
>     to C2:
> 
>                                       +------------------+
>                                       | Root Collection  |
>                                       |  bindings:       |
>                                       |  CollW    CollX  |
>                                       +------------------+
>                                           |          |
>                                           |          |
>                              +------------------+    |
>                              | Collection C1    |    |
>                              |  bindings:       |    |
>                              |           CollY  |    |
>                              +------------------+    |
>                                           |          |
>                                           |          |
>                                       +------------------+
>                                       | Collection C2    |
>                                       |                  |
>                                       |                  |
>                                       +------------------+
> 
>     In this case, the MOVE request below would cause a bind loop:
> 
>     >> Request:
> 
>     MOVE /CollW HTTP/1.1
>     Host: example.com
>     Destination: /CollX/CollZ
> 
> 
>                                       +------------------+
>                                       | Root Collection  |
>                                       |  bindings:       |
>                                       |           CollX  |
>                                       +------------------+
>                                                      |
>                                                      |
>                              +------------------+    |
>                              | Collection C1    |    |
>                       +----> |  bindings:       |    |
>                       |      |           CollY  |    |
>                       |      +------------------+    |
>                       |                   |          |
>                       |                   |          |
>                       |               +------------------+
>                       |               | Collection C2    |
>                       |               |  bindings:       |
>                       |               | CollZ            |
>                       |               +------------------+
>                       |                   |
>                       |                   |
>                       +-------------------+
> 
> (I also changed the preceding example into a separate subsection).
> 
> BR, Julian
> 
Received on Monday, 12 November 2007 16:30:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:15 GMT