Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253

Werner Donné <werner.donne@re.be> Thu, 28 August 2008 08:43 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 7B13028C172 for <ietfarch-webdav-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 L3SDtG5ZMkDL for <ietfarch-webdav-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068FB3A6A9C for <webdav-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:43:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <w3c-dist-auth-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1KYd55-0004UR-F0 for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:42:15 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([193.51.208.68]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <werner.donne@re.be>) id 1KYd53-0004So-PM for w3c-dist-auth@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:42:14 +0000
Received: from monty.telenet-ops.be ([195.130.132.56]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <werner.donne@re.be>) id 1KYd4u-0006Wf-UQ for w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:42:13 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by monty.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F55454018; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:41:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.0.109] (d54C3960D.access.telenet.be [84.195.150.13]) by monty.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E5A95405D; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:41:36 +0200 (CEST)
From: Werner Donné <werner.donne@re.be>
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF37CC663A.58EE5659-ON852574A7.0064C086-852574A7.0064E0E9@us.ibm.com>
References: <OF37CC663A.58EE5659-ON852574A7.0064C086-852574A7.0064E0E9@us.ibm.com>
Message-Id: <1DFCE453-99D1-4D87-88ED-BBB259D38CB9@re.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:41:36 +0200
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926)
Received-SPF: none
X-SPF-Guess: neutral
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-2.599
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1KYd4u-0006Wf-UQ bdb4467b51e212149c1696954112eff3
X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/1DFCE453-99D1-4D87-88ED-BBB259D38CB9@re.be>
Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org> archive/latest/12998
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: <E1KYd55-0004UR-F0@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:42:15 +0000

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