Re: Deleting an activity

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 004276D68525717E_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The main usage of MAY statements in 3253 was to highlight certain
allowed but not required behaviors that implementors at the time felt
were likely to occur (such as automatically putting resources under
version control when they were created, preventing the modification of
certain properties, and preventing the deletion of versions).

When a new revision of 3253 is created, at that time we would take a
poll on additional candidates for MAY statements, based on current
implementations.  So I would suggest deferring discussion on possible
additional candidates for MAY statements until we are in the end-game
of producing a new 3253 revision.=20

Cheers,
Geoff

Manfred wrote on 05/30/2006 05:53:03 AM:
> since the current wording of section 3.13 does not do any harm and=20
> there is no need to mention explicitly the possibility of rejecting=20
> a DELETE request on an activity resource, I do not think that this=20
> is really an issue. Again, a server may fail any request for whatever=20
reason.
=20
> Werner Donn=E9 wrote:=20
> 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.

> Manfred Baedke wrote:
> 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.

> Werner Donn=E9 wrote:
> Shouldn't then a pre-condition be added in section 13.8 of RFC 3253,
> analogous to the one in section 3.13?

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

> Werner Donn=E9 wrote:
> 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?

--=_alternative 004276D68525717E_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


<br><tt><font size=3D2>The main usage of MAY statements in 3253 was to high=
light
certain</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=3D2>allowed but not required behaviors that implementors
at the time felt</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=3D2>were likely to occur (such as automatically putting
resources under</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=3D2>version control when they were created, preventing
the modification of</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=3D2>certain properties, and preventing the deletion of
versions).</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=3D2>When a new revision of 3253 is created, at that time
we would take a</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=3D2>poll on additional candidates for MAY statements,
based on current</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=3D2>implementations. &nbsp;So I would suggest deferring
discussion on possible</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=3D2>additional candidates for MAY statements until we
are in the end-game</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=3D2>of producing a new 3253 revision. </font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=3D2>Cheers,</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=3D2>Geoff</font></tt>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=3D2>Manfred wrote on 05/30/2006 05:53:03 AM:<br>
&gt; since the current wording of section 3.13 does not do any harm and
<br>
&gt; there is no need to mention explicitly the possibility of rejecting
<br>
&gt; a DELETE request on an activity resource, I do not think that this
<br>
&gt; is really an issue. Again, a server may fail any request for whatever
reason.<br>
 <br>
&gt; Werner Donn=E9 wrote: </font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=3D2>&gt; Perhaps the pre-condition in section 3.13 could
be replaced with a<br>
&gt; final paragraph in the section saying that the operation may be<br>
&gt; rejected. It is also formulated like that in other areas of the<br>
&gt; specification, such as when the update of some property may be<br>
&gt; rejected. Such a paragraph would in place for section 13.8 too.<br>
<br>
&gt; Manfred Baedke wrote:<br>
&gt; being a MAY requirement, the precondition definition in section 3.13
is<br>
&gt; nothing really normative. Maybe its only me, but I find the concept
of a<br>
&gt; precondition containing only MAY requirements rather strange.<br>
<br>
&gt; Werner Donn=E9 wrote:<br>
&gt; Shouldn't then a pre-condition be added in section 13.8 of RFC 3253,<b=
r>
&gt; analogous to the one in section 3.13?<br>
<br>
&gt; Manfred Baedke wrote:<br>
&gt; This is of course allowed, IMHO. More generally, a server is allowed
to<br>
&gt; reject the deletion of any resource for whatever reason.<br>
<br>
&gt; Werner Donn=E9 wrote:<br>
&gt; When an activity is deleted all references to it should be removed.<br>
&gt; Versions that have the activity in their activity-set, for example,<br>
&gt; should have their activity-set updated. Versions, which were created<b=
r>
&gt; on a branch represented by the activity, all of the sudden are not<br>
&gt; on that branch anymore and in an implicit way. This seems rather<br>
&gt; strange and dangerous. Would it be allowed to reject the deletion<br>
&gt; of the activity in this case?<br>
</font></tt>
--=_alternative 004276D68525717E_=--