Re: BIND and cross-server binds

Mike Douglass wrote:
> 
> Rather late to the list I'm afraid...
> 
> Cyrus pointed out this draft to me in relation to some issues with 
> CalDAV and it seemed it would offer a solution to some practical 
> difficulties we ran into with the use of CalDAV - how do we make users 
> subscriptions appear in a CalDAV client.
> 
> The solution I was looking at was essentially some form of alias scheme 
> which would allow us to implant an alias to a resource in the users 
> calendar hierarchy. This works for shred calendars on the same system 
> and will work fine for shared calendars on any other system except that 
> it's unlikely they are going to tell us that the resource has been 
> deleted - nor do they care there is a link to that resource e.g. google.
> 
> Given that the server can behave perfectly reasonably in the event that 
> a targetted resource has gone missing why was it felt necessary to 
> require that the targetted server a) know about all such bindings and b) 
> inform the targetting servers?

Well, for BIND we assumed people want referential integrity.

Maybe you should look at redirect reference resources? 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4437.html>)

> And if I implement BIND such that it simply treats the target as empty 
> or non-existant how would anybody know different? By which I mean 
> wouldn't it be better to define the response if a targetted resource 
> disappears or becomes unavailable? The conditions as laid out in draft 
> 20 seem to make this feature unusable for many purposes

I'm not entirely sure what you mean... Could you provide an example?

BR, Julian