Re: Deleting an activity

Manfred Baedke <[email protected]> Tue, 30 May 2006 11:07:18 +0200
Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.deltav
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050802040101060007050601
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Werner,

being a MAY requirement, the precondition definition in section 3.13 is=20
nothing really normative. Maybe its only me, but I find the concept of a=20
precondition containing only MAY requirements rather strange.

Regards,
Manfred

Werner Donn=E9 wrote:
> Hi Manfred,
>
> Shouldn't then a pre-condition be added in section 13.8 of RFC 3253,
> analogous to the one in section 3.13?
>
> Regards,
>
> Werner.
>
> Manfred Baedke wrote:
>  =20
>> Hi Werner,
>>
>> This is of course allowed, IMHO. More generally, a server is allowed t=
o
>> reject the deletion of any resource for whatever reason.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Manfred
>>
>> Werner Donn=E9 wrote:
>>    =20
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> When an activity is deleted all references to it should be removed.
>>> Versions that have the activity in their activity-set, for example,
>>> should have their activity-set updated. Versions, which were created
>>> on a branch represented by the activity, all of the sudden are not
>>> on that branch anymore and in an implicit way. This seems rather
>>> strange and dangerous. Would it be allowed to reject the deletion
>>> of the activity in this case?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Werner.
>>>  =20
>>>      =20
>>    =20
>
>  =20

--------------050802040101060007050601
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Werner,<br>
<br>
being a MAY requirement, the precondition definition in section 3.13 is
nothing really normative. Maybe its only me, but I find the concept of
a precondition containing only MAY requirements rather strange.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Manfred<br>
<br>
Werner Donn&eacute; wrote:
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">Hi Manfred,

Shouldn't then a pre-condition be added in section 13.8 of RFC 3253,
analogous to the one in section 3.13?

Regards,

Werner.

Manfred Baedke wrote:
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Hi Werner,

This is of course allowed, IMHO. More generally, a server is allowed to
reject the deletion of any resource for whatever reason.

Regards,
Manfred

Werner Donn&eacute; wrote:
    </pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">Hi,

When an activity is deleted all references to it should be removed.
Versions that have the activity in their activity-set, for example,
should have their activity-set updated. Versions, which were created
on a branch represented by the activity, all of the sudden are not
on that branch anymore and in an implicit way. This seems rather
strange and dangerous. Would it be allowed to reject the deletion
of the activity in this case?

Regards,

Werner.
  
      </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap="">
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
  </pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

--------------050802040101060007050601--