- From: Yaron Goland (Exchange) <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 07:41:54 -0700
- To: "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
So I'm of for vacation for two weeks but before I leave I thought I would
drop a huge bomb on the group and then run screaming. You can thank me when
I get back. =)
When I do return from vacation I will follow up this paper with one looking
at the details of advanced collections as modeled by this paper and I will
finish out the paper. Note that bind becomes more about replication then
NR(N1) = NR(N2) mapping and yes, the model for collections will work (I
think) for versioning.
Oh and this is obviously not a finished draft, it is very early draft and
requires lots and lots of more work.
Yaron
The WebDAV Object Model
by
Yaron Y. Goland
July 15, 1999
Disclaimer
Weasel words are always annoying but the following weasel words are
important so please read them.
There is no standardized formalization of the HTTP or WebDAV object models.
Neither RFC 2616 nor RFC 2518 explicitly define their object models. Both,
in fact, seem to spend quite a bit of time trying to not talk about their
object models and rather to focus on presenting themselves as
request/response protocols.
This is unfortunate as it has lead to a lot of confusion regarding how these
protocols should be extended. The author of this paper had some very
definite ideas about how the HTTP and WebDAV object models worked as he
helped to author RFC 2518. His ideas changed over time and the content of
this paper is more rigorously defined than anything the author had actually
thought of when helping to write RFC 2518. That is also unfortunate as RFC
2518 probably would have been clearer had the author written this paper
several years earlier.
Therefore the contents of this paper represent the opinions of the author
and the author alone. Anyone who references this paper as being in anyway
authoritative will be making a fool of themselves. However it is the
author's hope that this paper will lead to the creation of a normative
document which formally and rigorously defines both the HTTP and WebDAV
object models.
The author of this paper assumes that the reader has read and understood RFC
2616, RFC 2617 and RFC 2518, in that order.
The Larry Masinter Disclaimer - The following document is not complete. I
apologize for wasting your time with its meaningless prattle.
Introduction
The goal of this paper is to provide an object model that will completely
describe the behavior of the URI namespace and HTTP resources as seen by
HTTP clients. This model is completely unrelated to how one would actually
implement an HTTP server. Rather it provides a robust model against which
extensions to RFC 2616 and RFC 2518 can be judged so as to ensure that such
extensions are consistent with the functionality already present in those
two specifications. It is the expectation of the author of this paper that
as future extensions are approved this paper will be extended to include
them.
[Will add a short summary of each major section.]
1 Namespace/Resource Space
1.1 In the beginning...
There exists the namespace. The namespace is the set of all possible URIs.
There exists the resource space. The resource space is the set of all
currently existing resources.
There exists a function NR() which maps from the namespace to the resource
space.
There exists another function RN() which maps from the resource space to the
namespace.
NR() is read as "Namespace to Resource space mapping function". The input to
NR() is N, which represents a single member of the namespace. The output of
NR() is R, which represents a single member of the resource space.
RN() is read as "Resource space to namespace mapping function". The input to
RN() is R, which represents a single member of the resource space. The
output of RN() is the set n which contains zero or more members of the
namespace.
NR() is a one-to-one function. For each value in the namespace there exists
one and only one value that it can map to in the resource space.
RN() is a one-to-many function. For each value in the resource space there
are zero to an infinite number of values it can map to in the namespace.
For every N in the namespace there must be a value R as the output of NR(N).
By default all NR(N) map to the NULL resource.
For every R, RN(R) will output a set n but n may be empty.
Thus while every N has an R not all Rs have Ns.
1.2 Form without...
A resource is defined as an object able to accept requests and send
responses. How a resource is actually implemented, how a namespace
communicates with it and all other issues pertaining to the underlying
nature of a resource are, by default, left completely undefined. Thus all we
know about a resource is what we are able to learn by sending it requests
via a member of the namespace and getting a response.
1.3 Call me Ishmael...
RFC 2616 introduces the http URL subset of the URI namespace set. The basic
form of the http URL is http://dest/segment/segment/...:port. Dest is either
a domain name or an IP address.
To send a message to a http name one first discovers the IP address for a
domain name in dest or if an IP address is already provided then the message
is sent directly to that IP address. A TCP port can also be specified, port
80 is the default.
The message form provided by RFC 2616 places the segment information inside
of the message. So RFC 2616 processing can be thought of as a multiple level
multiplexer. The first level of demultiplexing is based on the IP address
and port. The second level of demultiplexing occurs when the message is sent
to the specified IP address/port and the segment information is provided.
1.4 Sprechen Sie...
As a bit of a side note, the request-URI of a RFC 2616 message can accept
any arbitrary URI. Therefore it is possible to use HTTP to speak with any
member of the namespace. That is the theory.
The reality is that trying to put non-HTTP URLs in an RFC 2616 message is a
dangerous business. For example, if one makes a RFC 2616 request with the
request URI foo:bar and get back a 404, does that mean that NR(foo:bar) ==
NULL?
The answer is both yes and no, which is the problem. The answer is yes that
for the specified IP address and port the processing system present there
thinks that foo:bar is NULL but that doesn't mean that there isn't some
other system someplace which could actually translate foo:bar.
An example may help explain things better. Imagine one makes an HTTP request
for ftp://foo/bar. Some HTTP systems can proxy this request properly and do
something "intelligent." The rest will just reject it. So the value of
NR(ftp://foo/bar) depends on who you ask.
This problem doesn't exist with http URLs because there is a well defined
master location. If you go to the specified IP address and port whatever you
get in response is the definitive response from NR(http://whatever...). In
the case of non-http URLs there does not, by default, exist a RFC 2616 based
mechanism for determining if one is talking to the definitive processor for
a particular non-http name.
1.5 Send in the methods...
RFC 2616 defines a protocol called HTTP. HTTP provides a mechanism for
sending requests, called methods, to a member of the namespace and receiving
a response. The exact mechanism defined by HTTP is specified as:
1) A client sends a method formatted as specified by RFC 2616
to the member of the namespace specified by the request-URI.
2) The namespace member N performs the function NR(N) and
passes the method to the resulting R through an unspecified mechanism.
3) R will return a result to N through an unspecified
mechanism.
4) N will then pass that response in the format defined in RFC
2616 to the requestor.
The key concept is that only resources can perform computations. The
namespace only exists to forward requests to and send replies from
resources.
The format of a RFC 2616 request consists of a method name, a set of
name/value pairs called headers and a byte stream called the body. In
general RFC 2616 requests are called methods.
The format of a RFC 2616 response consists of a response code, a response
comment, headers and a body.
It is possible for a resource to know the name of the namespace member who
sends it a request. The resource may change its response based on the value
of the namespace member who sent the request. So, for example, the foo
method sent to N1 and N2, both of which map to R1, may end up with two
different responses even though they were sent to the exact same resource.
RFC 2616 also defines a set of standard methods - OPTIONS, GET, HEAD, POST,
PUT, DELETE, TRACE and CONNECT.
The following summaries of the method's functionality are meant to
concentrate on the effect and interaction of the method with the namespace
and resource space. Thus many details are left out. Note that the "code"
listed below is executed inside of the resource. Also note that if the
resource doesn't support the particular method then an error will be
returned.
The following are not really namespace related methods -
OPTIONS(N) - Will return descriptive information about the functionality of
R. Note that R may be aware of the value of N and therefore could return
different information based the value of N.
GET(N) - Will return a body whose value may or may not be chosen based on
the value of submitted headers.
HEAD(N) - Returns the headers, without the body, that would have been
returned had the request been a GET(N).
POST(N) - A well defined way to blow holes in firewalls.
TRACE(N) - Ping for HTTP.
CONNECT(N) - Just weird, don't worry about it.
The following alter the value of NR() -
PUT(N,G):
R = NR(N);
If (R != NULL) {
R.GET = G; // Future responses to GET will be G
return;
}
R' = R.CreateNewResource();
NR(N) = R';
R'.GET = G;
return;
The previous doesn't probably describe content negotiation, which will be
discussed later in the paper.
DELETE(N): If NR(N) = R is the NULL resource then the method will fail. If R
is not the NULL resource then R is to be deleted from the resource space and
all n in the output set to RN(R) are to have their NR(N) set to the NULL
resource.
1.6 31 Flavors...
Resources, as has already been implied, come in a number of different
flavors.
The first flavor of resource is the NULL resource. The NULL resource will
reject all methods and their namespace representative will return a 404 for
them.
NULL should be thought of as a base type upon which many different resources
inherit from. For example, a very common inheritor of NULL adds support for
the PUT method. The PUT supporting NULL resource will accept PUT methods,
will create a new resource and will set the GET output properly.
RFC 2616 doesn't require that the NULL resource support OPTIONS so it isn't
always possible to determine what sort of NULL resource one is talking to.
1.7 Moving on up...
RFC 2616 does not provide for very much control over the output of NR(). PUT
can be used to create a new R as a side effect and DELETE can be used to
destroy a R, but that is it.
For many applications more control is needed. Specifically, support for copy
and move functionality. Copy and move allow one to change the NR() output in
a manner that doesn't require clients to understand the fundamental nature
of the underlying resources.
The COPY and MOVE methods are defined by RFC 2518.
COPY(Ns,Nd) -
Rtemp = NR(Nd);
If ((Rtemp != NULL) && (Overwrite == FALSE))
return(FAIL);
Create(Rd);
Rs = NR(Ns);
Rd.State = Rs.State; // Just copying state information from Rs to Rd, the
resources are independent of each other.
NR(Nd) = Rs;
If ((Rtemp != NULL) && (RN(Rtemp) == Empty Set)) // THIS IS OPTIONAL
Destroy(Rtemp);
MOVE(Ns, Nd) -
Rtemp = NR(Nd);
If ((Rtemp != NULL) && (Overwrite == FALSE))
return(FAIL);
NR(Nd) = NR(Ns);
NR(Ns) = NULL;
If ((Rtemp != NULL) && (RN(Rtemp) == Empty Set)) // THIS IS OPTIONAL
Destroy(Rtemp);
1.8 Good Fences Make Good Neighbors...
RFC 2518 also provides for locking support that has some interesting effects
on the relationship of the namespace to the resource space.
LOCK(N,LockType) -
R = NR(N);
LockToken = R.Lock(LockType);
return(LockToken);
UNLOCK(N, LockToken) -
R = NR(N);
return(R.UnLock(LockToken));
The key point about locking to understand is that resources are locked, not
namespace entries. The type of the lock then effects how the resource
handles other types of requests.
For example, if NR(N1) = NR(N2) and a write lock is executed on N1 then it
will be impossible for a non-lock owner to delete N2 because N2 points to
the same resource and write locks prevent deletion of the resource by
non-lock owners.
[Add an example of processing methods on locked resources in order to drive
home the point that locks effect both the resource and the name under which
the lock was sent in. So you could move N2 but not N1 if you had a write
lock on N1. Actually, this should be a section on write locks in
particular.]
2 Hierarchy
2.1 What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate...
The http URL namespace, as previously defined, consists of a series of
segments that are separated by the "/" delimiter. This means that the http
URL namespace is hierarchical. Thus hierarchical terminology applies.
For example, http://foo/ is the parent of http://foo/bar.
http://foo/bar/blah/ is the child of http://foo/bar/.
An important subtlety of the http URL is that http://foo/bar and
http://foo/bar/ are not necessarily the same resource. Therefore
http://foo/bar/ and not http://foo/bar is the parent of http://foo/bar/blah
and http://foo/bar/blah/. Also note that http://foo is not a legal http URL.
2.2 From Little Acorns...
By default two resources related to each other through the namespace
hierarchy do not necessarily have any semantic relationship. So just because
R1 = NR(http://foo/) is the parent of R2 = NR(http://foo/bar) in the foo
part of the http URL namespace this does not necessarily mean that R1 and R2
have any other relationship.
Nevertheless, in many circumstances the fact that R2 was made the child of
R1 in the foo subset of the http URL namespace does have semantic meanings.
A common example is the use of WebDAV to implement a file hierarchy.
As such, a mechanism is needed to enumerate a resource's children in a
particular namespace in order to have a complete list of all the resources
which have some relationship implied by their membership in some namespace.
The trivial solution to this problem would be to introduce the SillyChild()
function which takes a member N of the namespace as an argument and returns
a set c of children. However SillyChild(N) would have an output that
consists of every possible legal combination of characters since every
possible URI in the universe is contained in the namespace.
What is needed is the following Child() function:
Child(N) -
Set c = NULL; //c is a variable of type set that is initially empty
for every child C of N
if (NR(C) != NULL)
add C to c;
Return(c);
In other words, one needs a way to list all children that map to a resource
that does not inherit from NULL.
RFC 2518 tackles this problem by introducing a new type of resource called a
collection resource. Collection resources implement the Child function
through the PROPFIND method. The actual functionality of the PROPFIND
function is a bit more complex and will be discussed in detail later in this
paper.
Note that for a resource R for which NR(N1) == NR(N2) == R the answer R will
give for PROPFIND when addressed through N1 will be different than the
answer given for N2 assuming N1 != N2. This is because the child
relationship is a function of the namespace and not of the resource space.
This is a very subtle but important point so I will repeat it again - The
child relationship is based on the naming relationships that exist within
the namespace.
That is why the same function can give totally unrelated answers for the
PROPFIND method depending upon the name used to address the resource.
Once one can list the children of a collection resource it is very temping
to allow one to manipulate entire hierarchies of the namespace based on
their child relations. RFC 2518 introduces the Depth header to provide this
functionality. The Depth header, when used on a collection resource, allows
one to specify that a method should apply to the resource and to its
children for the number of levels specified by the Depth header. The Depth
header current supports 0, 1 and infinite levels. Note that the Depth header
is to be ignored if it is not used on a collection resource.
RFC 2518 provides Depth support for the COPY, MOVE and DELETE methods.
The following is an example of the COPY method enhanced to support Depth.
Note that everything before the comment "Here is where we add depth support"
is unchanged.
COPY(Ns,Nd) -
Rtemp = NR(Nd);
If ((Rtemp != NULL) && (Overwrite == FALSE))
return(FAIL);
Create(Rd);
Rs = NR(Ns);
Rd.State = Rs.State; // Just copying state information from Rs to Rd, the
resources are independent of each other.
NR(Nd) = Rs;
If ((Rtemp != NULL) && (RN(Rtemp) == Empty Set)) // THIS IS OPTIONAL
Destroy(Rtemp);
// Here is where we add depth support
if (Rs == Collection Resource)
switch (depth) {
case 0:
return;
case 1:
depth = 0; //We assume all further COPY calls get this new value
case infinity:
break;
default:
//We ignore illegal depth values
return;
}
for every child C of Ns
if (NR(C) != NULL)
COPY(C,Nd+Last_Segment(C));
Nd+Last_Segment(C) is used to build up the destination of the new
destination argument. Nd is the base and the Last_Segment function takes the
last function of the URI name of C and concatenates it with Nd.
The point of providing this code is to drive home the point that depth based
functions such as COPY, MOVE and DELETE are based on relationships
established in the namespace and not on any relationships established in
resource space.
[Add in code for MOVE and DELETE.]
Having introduced a new resource called a collection RFC 2518 also
introduced a means to create such a resource through the MKCOL method.
MKCOL(N) -
R = NR(N);
If (R != NULL)
return(error);
If (R != MKCOL supporting NULL resource)
return(error);
Create Resource R' as a collection;
NR(N) = R';
2.3 A little taxonomy...
To understand the following conversation one needs to understand that RFC
2518 divides the world into two types of resources, DAV compliant and
non-DAV compliant.
The DAV compliant world is divided into two parts, level 1 and level 2.
A level 1 DAV compliant resource support all the RFC 2616 methods plus COPY,
MOVE, PROPFIND and PROPPATCH.
A level 2 DAV compliant resource support everything a level 1 DAV compliant
resource supports plus LOCK and UNLOCK.
Level 1 and Level 2 DAV compliant resources also come in two flavors,
collection and non-collection resources. A collection resource enforces the
namespace consistency requirements defined below and support the Depth
header.
DAV Compliant Resources Level 1 Level 2
Non-Collection Resource RFC 2616 + COPY + MOVE + PROPFIND + PROPPATCH
Non-Collection Level 1 Resource + LOCK + UNLOCK
Collection Resource Non-Collection Level 1 Resource + Consistency
Requirements + Depth Collection Level 1 Resource + LOCK + UNLOCK
The purpose of the previous was to drive home the point that in the world of
RFC 2518 there are two classes of resource, DAV and non-DAV compliant.
2.4 A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...
[For completeness I should talk about namespace consistency. I'm not going
to, but I really should.]
3 Inheritance
[We need to talk generally about the idea that a resource can inherit from
multiple types of resources such as a DASL/Level 2/Bind enabled/Versionable
resources.]
Neither RFC 2616 nor RFC 2518 provide generic mechanisms to create arbitrary
types of resources. There is no way, for example, to specify that one wants
a DAV compliant level 1 non-collection resource.
In the same way there is no way to specify what sort of NULL resource one
wants. For example, a user may want to specify that N and all its children
will point to a type of NULL resource that will only produce DAV Level 2
compliant resources.
The only method current specified which sort of provide for the previous
functionality is MKCOL. However even MKCOL doesn't allow the user to specify
if the resulting collection should be Level 1 or Level 2.
4 WebDAV Properties
PROPFIND
PROPPATCH
5 Content Negotiation
[Talk about the "client proposes - server disposes" model. Also talk about
the difference between content-location and location. Focus on the ambiguity
Henrik pointed out in content-location and content negotiation. You have the
news paper problem and the language problem and the way you use
content-location in each case is inconsistent with the other.]
Received on Thursday, 15 July 1999 10:43:20 UTC