W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 09:31:55 -0400
Message-ID: <E4F2D33B98DF7E4880884B9F0E6FDEE2B28801@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
I believe the answer should be (c).

The original binding to a version or a version
history has special semantics (i.e. if you
delete it, the resource is destroyed, and all bindings
to it are destroyed), while additional bindings (such
as those in a working collection) just have normal DELETE
semantics, i.e. just that binding is deleted. 

So MOVE would not be allowed on the original binding,
but is allowed on any other bindings.

And yes, once the BIND protocol is standardized, the
next revision of the DeltaV protocol should add the appropriate
preconditions to handle BIND semantics.


-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 6:19 AM
To: 'Webdav WG'
Subject: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253


RFC3253 defines several kinds of resources that MUST NOT be moved, for
instance version resources ([1]) and version history resources ([2]).

How does this impact the ability to create additional bindings?

a) You can't (so do we need additional preconditions)?
b) You can, but you can't delete the original binding (so do we need to
extend the DELETE semantics)?
c) We don't care -- BIND/DELETE may work, although MOVE is forbidden (in
which case I'd like zo understand why).


[1] <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3253.html#rfc.section.3.15>
[2] <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3253.html#rfc.section.5.8>

<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 09:32:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:27 UTC