- From: Sankar Virdhagriswaran <sv@hunchuen.crystaliz.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 08:21:52 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>, Jon Radoff <jradoff@novalink.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Even if POST is used as a way of sending and processing version control specific commands, there is value in standardizing "that" special use of POST. This way different plug-ins or CGI bin scripts can provide version control services with existing HTTP servers. This should not be dismissed out of hand. The installed base of HTTP servers is quite large. Additionally, in the new effort, I would like to see a factorization of the DAV services such that they could be added incrementally and placed in different places. For example, in our system, we manage the shared state of documents on the server side and use an HTTP proxy to provide configuration/workspace management service. Others have used proxies for the same kind of service and also to support group annotations (a distributed authoring service I would think). This kind of factorization allows us to do a whole host of interesting things w.r.to version control and configuration management. I would like to see that the new protocol consider such architectural issues. This way we can scale up easily than the current protocol design seems to indicate. Adding methods to HTTP is the easy approach. We also need to keep in mind the other neat architectural features of HTTP 1.1 (proxies, gateways, and pipelines) and see how we can leverage them and deal with the problems introduced by such architectural features (e.g., how does one deal with caches kept by proxies). The recent discussion of dealing with security through an API does not address the problems introduced by these other architectural entities. ACLs or state based ACLs (as was suggested by somebody earlier) need to be in the protocol for proxies and gateways to deal with that information correctly. P.S: (newbie question) Has there been any discussion before on the range of services to be provided by the DAV effort and their inter-relationships. Is there a service model document other than the ones alluded to in the documents on the archive server. Don't we need something like this document in order to scope our effort? Sankar Virdhagriswaran p. no: 508 371 0404
Received on Friday, 2 May 1997 08:18:49 UTC