Re: Deleting an activity

Hi Manfred,

Perhaps the pre-condition in section 3.13 could be replaced with a
final paragraph in the section saying that the operation may be
rejected. It is also formulated like that in other areas of the
specification, such as when the update of some property may be
rejected. Such a paragraph would in place for section 13.8 too.

Regards,

Werner.

Manfred Baedke wrote:
> Hi Werner,
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Regards,
> Manfred
>=20
> 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 =
to
>>> 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

--=20
Werner Donn=E9  --  Re
Engelbeekstraat 8
B-3300 Tienen
tel: (+32) 486 425803	e-mail: [email protected]