- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:39:49 +0200
- To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- CC: McCann Peter-A001034 <pete.mccann@motorola.com>, draft-ietf-webdav-bind@tools.ietf.org, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, gen-art@ietf.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > > you may receive. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-webdav-bind-23 > > Reviewer: Pete McCann > > Review Date: 29 May 2009 > > IETF LC End Date: 28 May 2009 > > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > > > Summary: Ready for publication as Experimental. I had a few minor > > questions that might just be a result of my own lack of > > understanding. > > > > Major issues: > > > > Minor issues: > > > > Section 2.3: > > If because of multiple > > bindings to a resource, more than one source resource updates a > > single destination resource, the order of the updates is server > > defined. > > Are you trying to say that a Request-URI can map to more than one > > resource? I didn't think this was possible. > > This is the scenario where the source collection, S, contains two > bindings to two distinct resources (S/a->R1 and S/b->R2), while the > destination collection D contains two bindings to the same resource > (D/a->R3 and D/b->R3). If you copy S to D, then after the copy, it is > up to the server whether R3 has the same content as R1 or R2. > > So it is a case of two bindings to the same resource, not a single URI > being mapped to more than one resource (which as you say, is impossible). Furthermore, we have added an example for this case in draft 24; see <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-24#section-2.3.2>. > > If a COPY request would cause a new resource to be created as a copy > > of an existing resource, and that COPY request has already created a > > copy of that existing resource, the COPY request instead creates > > another binding to the previous copy, instead of creating a new > > resource. > > This confused me a bit, but after reading the examples in the next > > section I think I understand what is intended here: do you mean that > > if the resource graph pointed at by the Request-URI itself has multiple > > bindings to the same resouce, that resource is only copied once by > > the COPY operation? > > Yes. > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > Abstract: s/insure/ensure/ > > Agreed. (Fixed in -24 as well). Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 09:40:34 UTC