- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:45:11 +0200
- To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Ok, I have a new version ready that (hopefully) addresses all points that have been raised so far. See <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-post-latest.html> BR, Julian (planning to submit it tomorrow as -01) Cyrus Daboo wrote: > > Hi Julian, > > --On September 23, 2008 5:46:12 PM +0200 Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > >>> "When a server supports WebDAV ACL [RFC3744], the DAV:bind privilege is >>> required to be granted on the collection resource in which the new >>> member resource is being created. If this privilege is denied or not >>> present, the POST request MUST fail." >> >> Yes, although I'd move that into a "Relation to WebDAV ACL" section. >> >>> Another question: there is no restriction on what p:add-member URI can >>> be? e.g. if I have the collection "/a/b/" can the p:add-member be >>> another resource entirely, e.g. "/a/use-c-to-create-in-b/"? If this is >> >> I thought that was already clear; maybe I should have chosen a different >> URI :-) > > A couple of different examples would help make it clear. > >>> possible it should be called out, as the behavior might be somewhat >>> unexpected for clients. It might even be the case that the p:add-member >>> URI is on a different server (e.g. new member items in a collection need >>> "approval" from some other service). The interaction with WebDAV ACL in >> >> It seems that that kind of redirection would need a different mechanism. >> Let's not make things more complicated than they need to be. > > OK, then let's explicitly state that the add-member URI must not be on a > different server. > >>> this case would need to be clear - i.e. what privileges are required on >>> the p:add-member URI? >> >> I think it would be sufficient to state the ACL requirements in terms of >> DAV:bind on the "real" collection. The add-member URI in general could me >> a non-WebDAV resource, so talking about WebDAV ACLs really doesn't make >> sense here. > > OK, makes sense. >
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2008 14:45:59 UTC