RE: DAV:executable ?

>
> > * is there a more general semantic to use? e.g. all permission types
> >   rather than just executable?
>
> This is my worry. Are people going to come along and say "But I want my
> scripts to be chmod 0700" (or whatever)? I'm more tempted by a
> "unix-permissions" type property, and allowing access to the real file
> permissions as an octal value.

Here's the slippery slope. What is really needed are more than just
executable permissions.  But, creating just a Unix permissions property
doesn't handle interoperability very well, since it doesn't map especially
well to non-Unix filesystems.  Then, once you start looking at the needed
access permissions for DAV, you realize that the ability to create a
resource, then share it with other users is also important.  Next thing you
know, you're dealing with just about the same set of issues as are in the
access control draft.

Yaron's been promising a new revision of the ACL spec. for some time now,
and I'm anxiously awaiting it.  If you have other ideas on how this should
work, please write them up in either a mail message, or better yet, an
Internet-Draft.  Heck, even writing up the Unix permissions property idea
would be useful, since it would act as a good null-hypothesis to anything
else we come up with.

- Jim

Received on Monday, 21 February 2000 20:32:44 UTC