Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253

I change my response to agree with Werner.
RFC 3253 explicitly requires that the versioning metadata have a MOVE 
"move" semantics, not "copy/delete" semantics (section 3.15), so the "Hm" 
note does not apply.

Cheers,
Geoff

Werner Donné <[email protected]> wrote on 08/28/2008 04:41:36 AM:

> I don't understand how COPY/DELETE semantics for the MOVE could apply
> to a version controlled resource. It would destroy the version history.
> It may be a valid implementation, but not a very useful one.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Werner.
> 
> On 16 Aug 2008, at 20:21, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> 
> >
> > 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
> 
> --
> Werner Donné  --  Re                                     http://www.
> pincette.biz
> Engelbeekstraat 8 
> http://www.re.be
> BE-3300 Tienen
> tel: (+32) 486 425803   e-mail: [email protected]
> 
> 
> 
> 
>