Re: A question on Versioning-unaware cl
Chris Kaler (ckaler@Exchange.Microsoft.com)
Thu, 7 Oct 1999 09:58:24 -0700
Message-ID: <FD7A762E588AD211A7BC00805FFEA54B041DD94B@HYDRANT>
From: "Chris Kaler (Exchange)" <ckaler@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
To: "'Tim_Ellison@oti.com'" <Tim_Ellison@oti.com>, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 09:58:24 -0700
Subject: RE: A question on Versioning-unaware cl
It is a question of interoperability with existing protocols.
Today, HTTP and FTP (for example), interoperate. When the
HTTP portion supports WebDAV versioning, there is now an
interop problem. Although this is outside of the scope of
this effort, I think we will avoid lots of questions and
problems down the road if specify an interop story. The
one I proposed seems simple and not burdensome on the server.
IMHO that is... :-)
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com [mailto:Tim_Ellison@oti.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 7:00 AM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: FW: A question on Versioning-unaware cl
<chris>
It seems to me, that if a server supports multiple
protocols, then a "PUT" via a non-versioning-aware
client/protocol, should be treated "always" as
automatic versioning.
</chris>
At least for my benefit, could you clarify/restate the problem.
We're defining a protocol extension to HTTP for versioning. If a server
supports multiple protocols (ftp, gopher, etc) then clearly there will be
issues for such servers to maintain data integrity across protocols, but why
would it affect DAV?
I appreciate it is different for 'down-level' clients (i.e. HTTP without DAV
extensions).
Tim