W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-webdav-bind-23

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 04:45:11 -0400
To: "McCann Peter-A001034" <pete.mccann@motorola.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-webdav-bind@tools.ietf.org, "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy@cisco.com>, gen-art@ietf.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF950F0D8D.0FB97342-ON852575C6.002F97AB-852575C6.003047CB@us.ibm.com>
"McCann Peter-A001034" <pete.mccann@motorola.com> wrote on 05/29/2009 
12:41:47 PM:
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer
> for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html
> <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html> ). 
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive. 
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-webdav-bind-23
> Reviewer: Pete McCann
> Review Date: 29 May 2009
> IETF LC End Date: 28 May 2009
> IESG Telechat date: unknown 
> 
> Summary: Ready for publication as Experimental.  I had a few minor
>          questions that might just be a result of my own lack of
>          understanding.
> 
> Major issues: 
> 
> Minor issues: 
> 
> Section 2.3:
>    If because of multiple
>    bindings to a resource, more than one source resource updates a
>    single destination resource, the order of the updates is server
>    defined.
> Are you trying to say that a Request-URI can map to more than one
> resource?  I didn't think this was possible.

This is the scenario where the source collection, S, contains two bindings 
to two distinct resources (S/a->R1 and S/b->R2), while the destination 
collection D contains two bindings to the same resource (D/a->R3 and 
D/b->R3).  If you copy S to D, then after the copy, it is up to the server 
whether R3 has the same content as R1 or R2.

So it is a case of two bindings to the same resource, not a single URI 
being mapped to more than one resource (which as you say, is impossible).

>    If a COPY request would cause a new resource to be created as a copy
>    of an existing resource, and that COPY request has already created a
>    copy of that existing resource, the COPY request instead creates
>    another binding to the previous copy, instead of creating a new
>    resource.
> This confused me a bit, but after reading the examples in the next
> section I think I understand what is intended here: do you mean that
> if the resource graph pointed at by the Request-URI itself has multiple
> bindings to the same resouce, that resource is only copied once by 
> the COPY operation?

Yes.

> Nits/editorial comments: 
> 
> Abstract:  s/insure/ensure/

Agreed.

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Saturday, 30 May 2009 08:45:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:17 GMT