Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253
Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com> Thu, 28 August 2008 13:40 UTC
Return-Path: <w3c-dist-auth-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-webdav-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-webdav-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EB0028C2BB for <ietfarch-webdav-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d9dCUPlPsNLW for <ietfarch-webdav-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD54B28C1D9 for <webdav-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <w3c-dist-auth-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1KYhiS-0004MU-Ez for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:39:12 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([193.51.208.68]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>) id 1KYhiQ-0004Lb-Qo for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:39:11 +0000
Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>) id 1KYhiH-0003oJ-FM for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:39:10 +0000
Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7SDcQHV026642 for <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:38:26 -0400
Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m7SDcPqu226026 for <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:38:26 -0400
Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m7SDcPDE003509 for <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:38:25 -0400
Received: from d01ml261.pok.ibm.com (d01ml261.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.97]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m7SDcPJ1003498; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:38:25 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1DFCE453-99D1-4D87-88ED-BBB259D38CB9@re.be>
To: Werner Donné <werner.donne@re.be>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006
From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OF1BC5652D.FE03C3B4-ON852574B3.004A4CC9-852574B3.004AEE2E@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:38:25 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML261/01/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February 07, 2008) at 08/28/2008 09:38:24, Serialize complete at 08/28/2008 09:38:24
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 004AED44852574B3_="
Received-SPF: pass
X-SPF-Guess: pass
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1KYhiH-0003oJ-FM f42b9e48976d54a79c8088cc2181e2de
X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/OF1BC5652D.FE03C3B4-ON852574B3.004A4CC9-852574B3.004AEE2E@us.ibm.com>
Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org> archive/latest/12999
X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <w3c-dist-auth.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1KYhiS-0004MU-Ez@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:39:12 +0000
I change my response to agree with Werner. RFC 3253 explicitly requires that the versioning metadata have a MOVE "move" semantics, not "copy/delete" semantics (section 3.15), so the "Hm" note does not apply. Cheers, Geoff Werner Donné <werner.donne@re.be> wrote on 08/28/2008 04:41:36 AM: > I don't understand how COPY/DELETE semantics for the MOVE could apply > to a version controlled resource. It would destroy the version history. > It may be a valid implementation, but not a very useful one. > > Regards, > > Werner. > > On 16 Aug 2008, at 20:21, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > > > > > The "Hm" note is correct. A MOVE will create an additional binding > > if the MOVE has REBIND semantics, but not if the MOVE has COPY/ > > DELETE semantics. > > > > Cheers, > > Geoff > > > > Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 08/16/2008 06:31:45 > > AM: > > > > > Julian Reschke wrote: > > > > > > > > Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Point 1 is correct. > > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > I think Werner is right in that many do not understand the > > relation > > > > between BIND and DeltaV, and thus it would be useful to state it. > > > > > > > > We already have a "Relationship to WebDAV Access Control Protocol" > > > > (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest. > > > html#rfc.section.9>), > > > > so my proposal would be to make that a generic "Relationship to > > other > > > > WebDAV Specifications", and having one subsection for ACL and > > DeltaV each. > > > > > > > > The DeltaV part could read (this is mainly Werner's text): > > > > > > > > "When supporting version controlled collections, bindings may be > > > > introduced in a server without actually issuing the BIND method. > > For > > > > instance, when a MOVE is performed of a resource from one > > > > version-controlled collection to another, both collections > > should be > > > > checked out. An additional binding would be the result if the > > target > > > > collection would be subsequently checked in, while the check-out > > of the > > > > source collection is undone. The resulting situation is > > meaningless if > > > > the binding model is not supported." > > > > ... > > > > > > Hm. > > > > > > It just occurred to me that a server that implements MOVE as a > > sequence > > > of COPY and DELETE would expose a different behavior -- checking > > in the > > > destination collection but reverting the source collection would > > turn > > > the operation into the equivalent of a COPY, not a BIND... > > > > > > BR, Julian > > -- > Werner Donné -- Re http://www. > pincette.biz > Engelbeekstraat 8 > http://www.re.be > BE-3300 Tienen > tel: (+32) 486 425803 e-mail: werner.donne@re.be > > > > >
- Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Werner Donné
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Geoffrey M Clemm
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Julian Reschke
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Julian Reschke
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Geoffrey M Clemm
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Werner Donné
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Geoffrey M Clemm
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Werner Donné
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Geoffrey M Clemm
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Werner Donné
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Geoffrey M Clemm
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Julian Reschke
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Julian Reschke
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Julian Reschke
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Werner Donné
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Julian Reschke
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Werner Donné
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Julian Reschke
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Werner Donné
- Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253 Julian Reschke