- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:34:13 -0700
- To: "'Slein, Judith A'" <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>, slein@wrc.xerox.com
- Cc: "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I would state in the goal document the general intent of the two reference types, indicate possible issues and then leave it to the protocol document to resolve these issues. Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Slein, Judith A [mailto:JSlein@crt.xerox.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 7:11 AM > To: Yaron Goland; slein@wrc.xerox.com > Cc: 'WebDAV' > Subject: RE: WG Last Call: Advanced Collections Requirements > > > Thanks for your comments. I agree that we need to make clear that > references are to resources, not to locations. > > The problem about what we mean by direct references is a more > difficult > one. It certainly needs to be thought through more carefully than it > has been so far. > > One approach that we could take is to stay with a very strict > definition > of direct reference: one for which no operations are passed through to > the target. Then treat direct and indirect references as marking the > ends of a continuum, where in between are references for which some > operations are passed through. We could require that the protocol be > able to represent direct references, indirect references, or > anything in > between (be able to say which operations will be passed > through for any > particular reference). > > Or we might be able to reach consensus on one or a small set of > reference types that are really useful and must be supported by the > protocol (not necessarily by servers). Indirect references are > certainly useful. Maybe another useful type of reference > passes through > these operations: > > PROPFIND > PROPPATCH > PUT > GET > POST > HEAD > DELETE > MOVE > COPY > > But does not pass through: > > Any operation on the parent collection > MKREF > DELREF > > A third useful type of reference might pass through: > > PROPFIND > PROPPATCH > PUT > GET > POST > HEAD > > But not pass through: > > DELETE > MOVE > COPY > Any operation on the parent collection > MKREF > DELREF > > Judith A. Slein > Xerox Corporation > jslein@crt.xerox.com > (716)422-5169 > 800 Phillips Road 105/50C > Webster, NY 14580 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yaron Goland [mailto:yarong@microsoft.com] > > Sent: Monday, August 10, 1998 9:22 PM > > To: slein@wrc.xerox.com > > Subject: RE: WG Last Call: Advanced Collections Requirements > > > > 3.1.5 Operations on a target resource do not affect > > references to it > > except as needed to enforce referential integrity. > > > > The last sentence of the last paragraph of section 3.1.5 > > states that "For > > example, if the target of a strong reference is moved, the > > reference must > > change to reflect the new location of the target." I realize > > it isn't a > > "MUST" but a "must" however I am concerned by this statement. > > When I create > > a strong reference am I referencing a particular resource or > > a particular > > location? If I am referencing a resource then having the > > strong reference > > change when the resource is moved makes sense. However if I > > am referencing a > > location then nothing but a DELETE should cause the strong > > reference to > > change. A MOVE, of course, is defined as a COPY followed by a > > DELETE, so it > > would seem that moving a resource on a strong location > > reference should > > result in the strong reference's deletion. > > > > I think it would be acceptable to specify that references > > only refer to > > resources not locations but I believe there really should be some > > clarification on the point. > > > > 3.1.15 Operations on a direct reference, except for > creation and > > deletion of the reference itself, are passed > > through to its > > target resource. > > > > There are obvious problems with this rule for operations such > > as COPY and > > MOVE of the parent collection. I think language is needed to > > call out the > > fact that a direct reference is still a reference and thus > > certain methods, > > especially COPY and MOVE, may not be passed through but > > rather will effect > > the reference directly. > > > > Yaron > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jim Whitehead [mailto:ejw@ics.uci.edu] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 1998 4:00 PM > > > To: WEBDAV WG > > > Subject: WG Last Call: Advanced Collections Requirements > > > > > > > > > *** WORKING GROUP LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS *** > > > > > > ADVANCED COLLECTIONS REQUIREMENTS > > > > > > Requirements for advanced collections capability within > > > WebDAV have been > > > discussed at length on the mailing list, and at three > > > successive WebDAV > > > face-to-face meetings. It is my opinion as Chair that this > > > document is > > > ready for final review, followed by submission to the IESG > > > for approval as > > > an Informational RFC. > > > > > > This is the final call for comments from the working group on > > > the document, > > > "Requirements for Advanced Collection Functionality in > > > WebDAV", by Judith > > > Slein and Jim Davis, <draft-ietf-webdav-collection-reqts-02>. > > > This last > > > call for comments period begins immediately, and ends Sunday, > > > August 30, at > > > midnight Pacific time. This allows over 3 weeks for > > > comments, including the > > > opportunity to make comments at the Chicago IETF meeting. > > > > > > At the end of the last call period, a new draft will be issued > > > (revision -03), containing any changes based on comments > > > received during the > > > working group last call period. Unless there are significant > > > technical > > > problems raised with this document during the last call > > > period, I intend to > > > submit the -03 draft to the Internet Engineering Steering > > > Group (IESG) for > > > approval as an Informational RFC. > > > > > > Details on the procedures used to develop IETF documents can > > > be found in RFC > > > 2026, which can be retrieved at: > > > > > ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2026.txt > > > > If there are any procedural questions or concerns, please do > > not hesitate to > > contact me, or raise an issue on the list. > > > > - Jim Whitehead > > Chair, IETF WEBDAV Working Group > > >
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 1998 14:33:56 UTC