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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:39:49 +0200
Message-ID: <4A23A1E5.60001@gmx.de>
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
CC: McCann Peter-A001034 <pete.mccann@motorola.com>, draft-ietf-webdav-bind@tools.ietf.org, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, gen-art@ietf.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
>  > 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).

Furthermore, we have added an example for this case in draft 24; see 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-24#section-2.3.2>.

>  >    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.

(Fixed in -24 as well).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 09:40:34 GMT

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