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

Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:31:45 +0200
Message-ID: <48A6AC91.4010309@gmx.de>
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
CC: Werner Donné <werner.donne@re.be>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
>>
>> Point 1 is correct.  
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> I think Werner is right in that many do not understand the relation 
> between BIND and DeltaV, and thus it would be useful to state it.
> 
> We already have a "Relationship to WebDAV Access Control Protocol" 
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.section.9>), 
> so my proposal would be to make that a generic "Relationship to other 
> WebDAV Specifications", and having one subsection for ACL and DeltaV each.
> 
> The DeltaV part could read (this is mainly Werner's text):
> 
> "When supporting version controlled collections, bindings may be 
> introduced in a server without actually issuing the BIND method. For 
> instance, when a MOVE is performed of a resource from one 
> version-controlled collection to another, both collections should be 
> checked out. An additional binding would be the result if the target 
> collection would be subsequently checked in, while the check-out of the 
> source collection is undone. The resulting situation is meaningless if 
> the binding model is not supported."
> ...

Hm.

It just occurred to me that a server that implements MOVE as a sequence 
of COPY and DELETE would expose a different behavior -- checking in the 
destination collection but reverting the source collection would turn 
the operation into the equivalent of a COPY, not a BIND...

BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 16 August 2008 10:45:00 GMT

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