- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:07:53 -0500
- To: "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
My reading of the consensus of the working group (although certainly not universal agreement) is that atomic behavior on the part of the server is preferable when the server is capable of doing so, especially when multiple bindings to a resource is possible. But since some servers cannot guarantee atomic behavior, this was made a "SHOULD" instead of a "MUST". Similarly, any server implementors that feel their clients want non-atomic behavior can present non-atomic behavior and still be compatible with the spec (because it is a SHOULD, not a MUST). In addition, I believe there was consensus that allowing the client to explicitly request atomic behavior was desireable, and this is achieved through the introduction of UNBIND/REBIND. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Jason Crawford [mailto:nn683849@smallcue.com] > I've posted a revised version of the binding draft to the > binding web site. Let me know what you think. > <http://www.webdav.org/bind/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-01.2.htm> Sorry to be a pain, but the reason we say that we are splitting in to DELETE and UNBIND is because some people claim that clients prefer the non-atomic DELETE functionality. But the new bindings document says that if the server can implement UNBIND, then DELETE should be implemented that way. This leaves me scratching my head. 1) Do users ever want the old DELETE functionality if they can have UNBIND? 2) If we really believe that they do, why do we suggest that the server do the UNBIND anyway? It sounds like we really haven't decided (1). Let's really decide that and then spec this to match what we resolve. J. ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com I do not check nn621779@smallcue.com
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 13:59:14 UTC