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

Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253

From: Werner Donné <werner.donne@re.be>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:41:36 +0200
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Message-Id: <1DFCE453-99D1-4D87-88ED-BBB259D38CB9@re.be>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

I don't understand how COPY/DELETE semantics for the MOVE could apply
to a version controlled resource. It would destroy the version history.
It may be a valid implementation, but not a very useful one.

Regards,

Werner.

On 16 Aug 2008, at 20:21, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:

>
> The "Hm" note is correct.  A MOVE will create an additional binding  
> if the MOVE has REBIND semantics, but not if the MOVE has COPY/ 
> DELETE semantics.
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
> Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 08/16/2008 06:31:45  
> AM:
>
> > 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

--
Werner Donné  --  Re                                     http://www.pincette.biz
Engelbeekstraat 8                                               http://www.re.be
BE-3300 Tienen
tel: (+32) 486 425803	e-mail: werner.donne@re.be
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 08:42:14 GMT

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