W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2008

BIND and cross-server binds

From: Mike Douglass <douglm@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:23:33 -0400
Message-ID: <47E16835.6090702@rpi.edu>
To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Rather late to the list I'm afraid...

Cyrus pointed out this draft to me in relation to some issues with 
CalDAV and it seemed it would offer a solution to some practical 
difficulties we ran into with the use of CalDAV - how do we make users 
subscriptions appear in a CalDAV client.

The solution I was looking at was essentially some form of alias scheme 
which would allow us to implant an alias to a resource in the users 
calendar hierarchy. This works for shred calendars on the same system 
and will work fine for shared calendars on any other system except that 
it's unlikely they are going to tell us that the resource has been 
deleted - nor do they care there is a link to that resource e.g. google.

Given that the server can behave perfectly reasonably in the event that 
a targetted resource has gone missing why was it felt necessary to 
require that the targetted server a) know about all such bindings and b) 
inform the targetting servers?

And if I implement BIND such that it simply treats the target as empty 
or non-existant how would anybody know different? By which I mean 
wouldn't it be better to define the response if a targetted resource 
disappears or becomes unavailable? The conditions as laid out in draft 
20 seem to make this feature unusable for many purposes


-- 

Mike Douglass                           douglm@rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer
Communication & Collaboration Technologies      518 276 6780(voice) 2809
(fax)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 110 8th Street, Troy, NY 12180
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 19:24:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:16 GMT