- From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:18:12 -0400
- To: "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I have just finished reading through the latest requirements draft, and have a few minor comments of my own. In general, though, the document is in very good shape, and I think we'll be able to submit it to the IESG later this month. ---- Section 1, "Introduction", para. 2: "This document is intended to reflect the consensus of the WWW Distributed Authoring and Versioning working group (WebDAV) ..." Change to: "This document reflects the consensus of the ..." Rationale: Since this document will only be sent to the IESG is there is rough consensus in the working group on the requirements document, the document will reflect the consensus of the group at that time. ---- Section 4.5, "Replicated, Distributed Systems" Remove the sentence, "Resources may have properties on different servers." Also change: "Any resources may be cached or replicated..." to: "Any resource may be cached or replicated..." Rationale: Since the current notion of a property is an attribute/value pair which is stored as part of the state of a resource, this requirement would entail splitting the state of a resource across different servers. I think the intent of this might have been that linking to other resources would allow large-chunk metadata to be associated with a resource. ---- Section 5.7.1.1 and 5.7.2.1 (Functional Requirements of Copy and Move) Remove the sentence concerning octet for octet copy and move. Rationale: It strikes me that specifying the exact characteristics of a copy or move in the requirements is a bit odd, that this level of detail should be left to the protocol specification, and not the requirements document. Another reason for removing these sentences is that, due to the existence of live properties, the destination resource of a copy or move operation may not be octet-for-octet identical since the live properties are recomputed after the copy/move operation. ---- Section 5.10.2 (Variants Rationale) I recommend we add a note stating that it is the intent of the group to develop a separate fine-grain requirements and protocol document on the topic of variants. This would treat variants in a similar way to the access control requirements document, which also has a pointer in this requirements document. ---- Section 5.11.3 (Interoperability with Security Protocols) Change: "The WebDAV specification should provide a minimal set of security protocols which any compliant server / client should support." To: "The WebDAV specification must provide a minimal set of security protocols which any compliant server / client must support." Rationale: The IESG has been very clear in stating they will not accept any new standards-track protocols if they do not address security in a substantive way. Changing these shoulds to musts is consistent with this. ---- References: The access control requirements document needs to be listed as an "unpublished manuscript. The URL for this draft is: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1997AprJun/0183.html - Jim
Received on Thursday, 18 September 1997 17:22:29 UTC