Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253

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 <[email protected]> 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