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

Re: RFC3744 question: COPY privileges

From: Werner Donné <werner.donne@re.be>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 14:19:31 +0200
To: Evert | Rooftop <evert@rooftopsolutions.nl>
Message-Id: <A9940217-1B4C-473E-8571-CF0594201C41@re.be>
Cc: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Hi Evert,

If you are deleting an existing target collection prior to the actual  
COPY, the latter will create a new collection resource with a new  
binding in the collection the existing target collection was in. This  
would require the "bind" privilege for that parent collection, just as  
when you move the source collection into it. So you don't need a  
special interpretation of any privileges. There are anyway no "copy  
privileges".

Best regards,

Werner.

--
http://www.pincette.biz/
Handling your documents with care, wherever you are.

On 04 Oct 2009, at 02:15, Evert | Rooftop <evert@rooftopsolutions.nl>  
wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> I'm implementing RFC3744. However, the required privileges for COPY  
> don't make a lot of sense to me. (Referencing Appendix B).
> If I'm doing a COPY and the target already exists, the write-content  
> and write-properties privileges are required for the target resource.
>
> This is contrasting with MOVE, where the requirements for the target  
> collection is unbind/bind.
>
> RFC4918 (section 9.8.4) states the following:
>
> When a collection is overwritten, the membership of the destination  
> collection after the successful COPY request MUST be the same  
> membership as the source collection immediately before the COPY.  
> Thus,   merging the membership of the source and destination  
> collections together in the destination is not a compliant behavior.
>
> In general, if clients require the state of the destination URL to  
> be wiped out prior to a COPY (e.g., to force live properties to be  
> reset), then the client could send a DELETE to the destination  
> before the COPY request to ensure this reset.
>
> (end copy-paste).
>
> If I'm copying a non-collection resource to overwrite another non- 
> collection resource, this behaviour makes total sense to me.  
> However, when I'm dealing with collections on either the source or  
> the target, I'm deleting the target resource before doing the copy  
> (which I feel is quite sensible).
>
> So from the perspective of RFC3744, I feel the spec makes the  
> assumption COPY is just dealing with non-collections. Do I have the  
> liberty to treat COPY privileges similar to MOVE?
> Either way this will probably be the route I will be taking, but  
> clarification is appreciated.
>
> Evert
Received on Sunday, 4 October 2009 12:19:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 4 October 2009 12:19:35 GMT