Re: The document's address

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 08 March 2013 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98EF521F880B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 08:17:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PZiMvfhfpVqI for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 08:17:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1851A21F8809 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 08:17:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UDzy5-0005jr-Mh for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:16:25 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:16:25 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UDzy5-0005jr-Mh@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UDzxr-0005hj-HA for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:16:11 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UDzxi-0000jP-80 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:16:11 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.33]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MBHw3-1U6bYY0b2L-00AChd for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 17:15:35 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 08 Mar 2013 16:15:34 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.105]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp033) with SMTP; 08 Mar 2013 17:15:34 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/gHjoJPWvg3oOwArhBfCas2lum04mY7tBLSmGAn1 TQ53XQIDH2l7iZ
Message-ID: <513A0EA4.7040800@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 17:15:32 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nicholas Shanks <nickshanks@gmail.com>
CC: IETF HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <DF0A84C4-AEAB-4716-B23F-FB3BA48BDE3C@gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1301171948100.2101@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <CA+hEJVXz61Z16v5scW=YnM_5f6MY==PBySor82hRFA+rbuDuZw@mail.gmail.com> <E1445F85-E1EA-4B2E-AE96-62361EFC025D@gbiv.com> <CA+hEJVWww72deBu9nWTxJax+XX8u7E=wez37hmZJtRR0jtPTVA@mail.gmail.com> <513A06D3.6030802@gmx.de> <CA+hEJVU_=UFZZLv9zHfz0dVXaVkVX3RzKDbvBKHD03eOt5iXsg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+hEJVU_=UFZZLv9zHfz0dVXaVkVX3RzKDbvBKHD03eOt5iXsg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.20; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.412, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UDzxi-0000jP-80 d26b43df7c2620afdfc1775364a452b8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: The document's address
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/513A0EA4.7040800@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16991
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2013-03-08 17:10, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
> On 8 March 2013 15:42, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> That implies a concept of hierarchical ownership that simply does not exist
>> in HTTP. It might for some servers, but there's no guarantee.
>
> Can you provide an example (make one up) where ownership cannot be
> defined as hierarchical and accumulative?

Pretty much any server that is backed by a content management system 
where ACLs can be set on individual resources.

> I am suggesting that HTTP's concept of "ownership" (for purposes of
> replacing cache entries) be defined by the specs to be hierarchical,
> since if I own / and I want to sabotage /subdir/ all I have to do is
> log in to the server and replace/delete it.

How is that relevant? Me confused.

Best regards, Julian