idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-webdav-bind-25.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a License Notice according IETF Trust Provisions of 28 Dec 2009, Section 6.b.i or Provisions of 12 Sep 2009 Section 6.b -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Feb 2009 rather than one of the newer Notices. See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.) Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 612 has weird spacing: '...| x.gif y.g...' == Line 634 has weird spacing: '...| x.gif y.g...' == Line 905 has weird spacing: '...| x.gif y.g...' -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust. If you are able to get all authors (current and original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (June 10, 2009) is 5433 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2616 (Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231, RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group G. Clemm 3 Internet-Draft IBM 4 Intended status: Experimental J. Crawford 5 Expires: December 12, 2009 IBM Research 6 J. Reschke, Ed. 7 greenbytes 8 J. Whitehead 9 U.C. Santa Cruz 10 June 10, 2009 12 Binding Extensions to Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) 13 draft-ietf-webdav-bind-25 15 Status of this Memo 17 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 18 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material 19 from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly 20 available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the 21 copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF 22 Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the 23 IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from 24 the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this 25 document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and 26 derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards 27 Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to 28 translate it into languages other than English. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 32 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 33 Drafts. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 41 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 43 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 44 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 46 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 12, 2009. 48 Copyright Notice 49 Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 50 document authors. All rights reserved. 52 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 53 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of 54 publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 55 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 56 and restrictions with respect to this document. 58 Abstract 60 This specification defines bindings, and the BIND method for creating 61 multiple bindings to the same resource. Creating a new binding to a 62 resource causes at least one new URI to be mapped to that resource. 63 Servers are required to ensure the integrity of any bindings that 64 they allow to be created. 66 Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication) 68 Please send comments to the Distributed Authoring and Versioning 69 (WebDAV) working group at , which may be 70 joined by sending a message with subject "subscribe" to 71 . Discussions of the WEBDAV 72 working group are archived at 73 . 75 lists 76 all registered issues since draft 02. 78 Table of Contents 80 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 81 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 82 1.2. Method Preconditions and Postconditions . . . . . . . . . 8 83 2. Overview of Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 84 2.1. Bindings to Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 85 2.1.1. Bind Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 86 2.2. URI Mappings Created by a new Binding . . . . . . . . . . 9 87 2.3. COPY and Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 88 2.3.1. Example: COPY with 'Depth: infinity' in Presence 89 of Bind Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 90 2.3.2. Example: COPY updating multiple Bindings . . . . . . . 14 91 2.3.3. Example: COPY with 'Depth: infinity' with Multiple 92 Bindings to a Leaf Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 93 2.4. DELETE and Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 94 2.5. MOVE and Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 95 2.5.1. Example: Simple MOVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 96 2.5.2. Example: MOVE Request causing a Bind Loop . . . . . . 17 97 2.6. PROPFIND and Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 98 2.7. Determining Whether Two Bindings Are to the Same 99 Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 100 2.8. Discovering the Bindings to a Resource . . . . . . . . . . 20 101 3. Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 102 3.1. DAV:resource-id Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 103 3.2. DAV:parent-set Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 104 3.2.1. Example for DAV:parent-set Property . . . . . . . . . 21 105 4. BIND Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 106 4.1. Example: BIND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 107 5. UNBIND Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 108 5.1. Example: UNBIND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 109 6. REBIND Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 110 6.1. Example: REBIND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 111 6.2. Example: REBIND in Presence of Locks and Bind Loops . . . 30 112 7. Additional Status Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 113 7.1. 208 Already Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 114 7.1.1. Example: PROPFIND by Bind-Aware Client . . . . . . . . 33 115 7.1.2. Example: PROPFIND by Non-Bind-Aware Client . . . . . . 35 116 7.2. 506 Loop Detected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 117 8. Capability Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 118 8.1. OPTIONS Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 119 8.2. 'DAV' Request Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 120 9. Relationship to WebDAV Access Control Protocol . . . . . . . . 36 121 10. Relationship to Versioning Extensions to WebDAV . . . . . . . 36 122 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 123 11.1. Privacy Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 124 11.2. Bind Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 125 11.3. Bindings, and Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 126 11.4. Private Locations May Be Revealed . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 127 11.5. DAV:parent-set and Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . 39 128 12. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 129 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 130 14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 131 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 132 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 133 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 134 Appendix A. Clarification to RFC2518bis' Usage of the term 135 'lock root' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 136 Appendix B. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before 137 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 138 B.1. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 139 B.2. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 140 B.3. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 141 B.4. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 142 B.5. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 143 B.6. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 144 B.7. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 145 B.8. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 146 B.9. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 147 B.10. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 148 B.11. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 149 B.12. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 150 B.13. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 151 B.14. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 152 B.15. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 153 B.16. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 154 B.17. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 155 B.18. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 156 B.19. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 157 B.20. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 158 B.21. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 159 B.22. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 160 B.23. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 161 Appendix C. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor 162 before publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 163 C.1. edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 164 C.2. should-not-update-4918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 165 C.3. sec-cons-references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 166 C.4. should-update-2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 167 C.5. webdav-wg-gone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 168 C.6. clarify-clarify . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 169 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 170 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 172 1. Introduction 174 This specification extends the WebDAV Distributed Authoring Protocol 175 ([RFC4918]) to enable clients to create new access paths to existing 176 resources. This capability is useful for several reasons: 178 URIs of WebDAV-compliant resources are hierarchical and correspond to 179 a hierarchy of collections in resource space. The WebDAV Distributed 180 Authoring Protocol makes it possible to organize these resources into 181 hierarchies, placing them into groupings, known as collections, which 182 are more easily browsed and manipulated than a single flat 183 collection. However, hierarchies require categorization decisions 184 that locate resources at a single location in the hierarchy, a 185 drawback when a resource has multiple valid categories. For example, 186 in a hierarchy of vehicle descriptions containing collections for 187 cars and boats, a description of a combination car/boat vehicle could 188 belong in either collection. Ideally, the description should be 189 accessible from both. Allowing clients to create new URIs that 190 access the existing resource lets them put that resource into 191 multiple collections. 193 Hierarchies also make resource sharing more difficult, since 194 resources that have utility across many collections are still forced 195 into a single collection. For example, the mathematics department at 196 one university might create a collection of information on fractals 197 that contains bindings to some local resources, but also provides 198 access to some resources at other universities. For many reasons, it 199 may be undesirable to make physical copies of the shared resources on 200 the local server: to conserve disk space, to respect copyright 201 constraints, or to make any changes in the shared resources visible 202 automatically. Being able to create new access paths to existing 203 resources in other collections or even on other servers is useful for 204 this sort of case. 206 The BIND method defined here provides a mechanism for allowing 207 clients to create alternative access paths to existing WebDAV 208 resources. HTTP [RFC2616] and WebDAV [RFC4918] methods are able to 209 work because there are mappings between URIs and resources. A method 210 is addressed to a URI, and the server follows the mapping from that 211 URI to a resource, applying the method to that resource. Multiple 212 URIs may be mapped to the same resource, but until now there has been 213 no way for clients to create additional URIs mapped to existing 214 resources. 216 BIND lets clients associate a new URI with an existing WebDAV 217 resource, and this URI can then be used to submit requests to the 218 resource. Since URIs of WebDAV resources are hierarchical, and 219 correspond to a hierarchy of collections in resource space, the BIND 220 method also has the effect of adding the resource to a collection. 221 As new URIs are associated with the resource, it appears in 222 additional collections. 224 A BIND request does not create a new resource, but simply makes 225 available a new URI for submitting requests to an existing resource. 226 The new URI is indistinguishable from any other URI when submitting a 227 request to a resource. Only one round trip is needed to submit a 228 request to the intended target. Servers are required to enforce the 229 integrity of the relationships between the new URIs and the resources 230 associated with them. Consequently, it may be very costly for 231 servers to support BIND requests that cross server boundaries. 233 This specification is organized as follows. Section 1.1 defines 234 terminology used in the rest of the specification, while Section 2 235 overviews bindings. Section 3 defines the new properties needed to 236 support multiple bindings to the same resource. Section 4 specifies 237 the BIND method, used to create multiple bindings to the same 238 resource. Section 5 specifies the UNBIND method, used to remove a 239 binding to a resource. Section 6 specifies the REBIND method, used 240 to move a binding to another collection. 242 1.1. Terminology 244 The terminology used here follows and extends that in the WebDAV 245 Distributed Authoring Protocol specification [RFC4918]. 247 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 248 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 249 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 251 This document uses XML DTD fragments ([XML]) as a notational 252 convention, using the rules defined in Section 17 of [RFC4918]. 254 URI Mapping 256 A relation between an absolute URI and a resource. For an 257 absolute URI U and the resource it identifies R, the URI mapping 258 can be thought of as (U => R). Since a resource can represent 259 items that are not network retrievable, as well as those that are, 260 it is possible for a resource to have zero, one, or many URI 261 mappings. Mapping a resource to an "http" scheme URI makes it 262 possible to submit HTTP protocol requests to the resource using 263 the URI. 265 Path Segment 267 Informally, the characters found between slashes ("/") in a URI. 268 Formally, as defined in Section 3.3 of [RFC3986]. 270 Binding 272 A relation between a single path segment (in a collection) and a 273 resource. A binding is part of the state of a collection. If two 274 different collections contain a binding between the same path 275 segment and the same resource, these are two distinct bindings. 276 So for a collection C, a path segment S, and a resource R, the 277 binding can be thought of as C:(S -> R). Bindings create URI 278 mappings, and hence allow requests to be sent to a single resource 279 from multiple locations in a URI namespace. For example, given a 280 collection C (accessible through the URI 281 http://www.example.com/CollX), a path segment S (equal to 282 "foo.html"), and a resource R, then creating the binding C: (S -> 283 R) makes it possible to use the URI 284 http://www.example.com/CollX/foo.html to access R. 286 Collection 288 A resource that contains, as part of its state, a set of bindings 289 that identify internal member resources. 291 Internal Member URI 293 The URI that identifies an internal member of a collection, and 294 that consists of the URI for the collection, followed by a slash 295 character ('/'), followed by the path segment of the binding for 296 that internal member. 298 Binding Integrity 300 The property of a binding that says that: 302 * the binding continues to exist, and 304 * the identity of the resource identified by that binding does 305 not change 307 unless an explicit request is executed that is defined to delete 308 that binding (examples of requests that delete a binding are 309 DELETE, MOVE, and - defined later on - UNBIND, and REBIND). 311 1.2. Method Preconditions and Postconditions 313 See Section 16 of [RFC4918] for the definitions of "precondition" and 314 "postcondition". 316 2. Overview of Bindings 318 Bindings are part of the state of a collection. They define the 319 internal members of the collection, and the names of those internal 320 members. 322 Bindings are added and removed by a variety of existing HTTP methods. 323 A method that creates a new resource, such as PUT, COPY, and MKCOL, 324 adds a binding. A method that deletes a resource, such as DELETE, 325 removes a binding. A method that moves a resource (e.g. MOVE) both 326 adds a binding (in the destination collection) and removes a binding 327 (in the source collection). The BIND method introduced here provides 328 a mechanism for adding a second binding to an existing resource. 329 There is no difference between an initial binding added by PUT, COPY, 330 or MKCOL, and additional bindings added with BIND. 332 It would be very undesirable if one binding could be destroyed as a 333 side effect of operating on the resource through a different binding. 334 In particular, the removal of one binding to a resource (e.g. with a 335 DELETE or a MOVE) MUST NOT disrupt another binding to that resource, 336 e.g. by turning that binding into a dangling path segment. The 337 server MUST NOT reclaim system resources after removing one binding, 338 while other bindings to the resource remain. In other words, the 339 server MUST maintain the integrity of a binding. It is permissible, 340 however, for future method definitions (e.g., a DESTROY method) to 341 have semantics that explicitly remove all bindings and/or immediately 342 reclaim system resources. 344 2.1. Bindings to Collections 346 Creating a new binding to a collection makes each resource associated 347 with a binding in that collection accessible via a new URI, and thus 348 creates new URI mappings to those resources but no new bindings. 350 For example, suppose a new binding CollY is created for collection C1 351 in the figure below. It immediately becomes possible to access 352 resource R1 using the URI /CollY/x.gif and to access resource R2 353 using the URI /CollY/y.jpg, but no new bindings for these child 354 resources were created. This is because bindings are part of the 355 state of a collection, and associate a URI that is relative to that 356 collection with its target resource. No change to the bindings in 357 Collection C1 is needed to make its children accessible using /CollY/ 358 x.gif and /CollY/y.jpg. 360 +-------------------------+ 361 | Root Collection | 362 | bindings: | 363 | CollX CollY | 364 +-------------------------+ 365 | / 366 | / 367 | / 368 +------------------+ 369 | Collection C1 | 370 | bindings: | 371 | x.gif y.jpg | 372 +------------------+ 373 | \ 374 | \ 375 | \ 376 +-------------+ +-------------+ 377 | Resource R1 | | Resource R2 | 378 +-------------+ +-------------+ 380 2.1.1. Bind Loops 382 Bindings to collections can result in loops ("cycles"), which servers 383 MUST detect when processing "Depth: infinity" requests. It is 384 sometimes possible to complete an operation in spite of the presence 385 of a loop. For instance, a PROPFIND can still succeed if the server 386 uses the new status code 208 (Already Reported) defined in 387 Section 7.1. 389 However, the 506 (Loop Detected) status code is defined in 390 Section 7.2 for use in contexts where an operation is terminated 391 because a loop was encountered. 393 Support for loops is OPTIONAL: servers MAY reject requests that would 394 lead to the creation of a bind loop (see DAV:cycle-allowed 395 precondition defined in Section 4). 397 2.2. URI Mappings Created by a new Binding 399 Suppose a binding from "Binding-Name" to resource R is to be added to 400 a collection, C. Then if C-MAP is the set of URIs that were mapped to 401 C before the BIND request, then for each URI "C-URI" in C-MAP, the 402 URI "C-URI/Binding-Name" is mapped to resource R following the BIND 403 request. 405 For example, if a binding from "foo.html" to R is added to a 406 collection C, and if the following URIs are mapped to C: 408 http://www.example.com/A/1/ 409 http://example.com/A/one/ 411 then the following new mappings to R are introduced: 413 http://www.example.com/A/1/foo.html 414 http://example.com/A/one/foo.html 416 Note that if R is a collection, additional URI mappings are created 417 to the descendents of R. Also, note that if a binding is made in 418 collection C to C itself (or to a parent of C), an infinite number of 419 mappings are introduced. 421 For example, if a binding from "myself" to C is then added to C, the 422 following infinite number of additional mappings to C are introduced: 424 http://www.example.com/A/1/myself 425 http://www.example.com/A/1/myself/myself 426 ... 428 and the following infinite number of additional mappings to R are 429 introduced: 431 http://www.example.com/A/1/myself/foo.html 432 http://www.example.com/A/1/myself/myself/foo.html 433 ... 435 2.3. COPY and Bindings 437 As defined in Section 9.8 of [RFC4918], COPY causes the resource 438 identified by the Request-URI to be duplicated, and makes the new 439 resource accessible using the URI specified in the Destination 440 header. Upon successful completion of a COPY, a new binding is 441 created between the last path segment of the Destination header, and 442 the destination resource. The new binding is added to its parent 443 collection, identified by the Destination header minus its final 444 segment. 446 The following figure shows an example: Suppose that a COPY is issued 447 to URI-3 for resource R (which is also mapped to URI-1 and URI-2), 448 with the Destination header set to URI-X. After successful 449 completion of the COPY operation, resource R is duplicated to create 450 resource R', and a new binding has been created which creates at 451 least the URI mapping between URI-X and the new resource (although 452 other URI mappings may also have been created). 454 URI-1 URI-2 URI-3 URI-X 455 | | | | 456 | | | <---- URI Mappings ----> | 457 | | | | 458 +---------------------+ +------------------------+ 459 | Resource R | | Resource R' | 460 +---------------------+ +------------------------+ 462 It might be thought that a COPY request with "Depth: 0" on a 463 collection would duplicate its bindings, since bindings are part of 464 the collection's state. This is not the case, however. The 465 definition of Depth in [RFC4918] makes it clear that a "Depth: 0" 466 request does not apply to a collection's members. Consequently, a 467 COPY with "Depth: 0" does not duplicate the bindings contained by the 468 collection. 470 If a COPY request causes an existing resource to be updated, the 471 bindings to that resource MUST be unaffected by the COPY request. 472 Using the preceding example, suppose that a COPY request is issued to 473 URI-X for resource R', with the Destination header set to URI-2. The 474 content and dead properties of resource R would be updated to be a 475 copy of those of resource R', but the mappings from URI-1, URI-2, and 476 URI-3 to resource R remain unaffected. If because of multiple 477 bindings to a resource, more than one source resource updates a 478 single destination resource, the order of the updates is server 479 defined (see Section 2.3.2 for an example). 481 If a COPY request would cause a new resource to be created as a copy 482 of an existing resource, and that COPY request has already created a 483 copy of that existing resource, the COPY request instead creates 484 another binding to the previous copy, instead of creating a new 485 resource (see Section 2.3.3 for an example). 487 2.3.1. Example: COPY with 'Depth: infinity' in Presence of Bind Loops 489 As an example of how COPY with Depth infinity would work in the 490 presence of bindings, consider the following collection: 492 +------------------+ 493 | Root Collection | 494 | bindings: | 495 | CollX | 496 +------------------+ 497 | 498 | 499 +-------------------------------+ 500 | Collection C1 |<-------+ 501 | bindings: | | 502 | x.gif CollY | | 503 +-------------------------------+ | 504 | \ (creates loop) | 505 | \ | 506 +-------------+ +------------------+ | 507 | Resource R1 | | Collection C2 | | 508 +-------------+ | bindings: | | 509 | y.gif CollZ | | 510 +------------------+ | 511 | | | 512 | +--------+ 513 | 514 +-------------+ 515 | Resource R2 | 516 +-------------+ 518 If a COPY with Depth infinity is submitted to /CollX, with 519 destination of /CollA, the outcome of the copy operation is: 521 +------------------+ 522 | Root Collection | 523 | bindings: | 524 | CollX CollA | 525 +------------------+ 526 | | 527 | +---------------------------+ 528 | | 529 +-------------------+ | 530 | Collection C1 |<------------------+ | 531 | bindings: | | | 532 | x.gif CollY | | | 533 +-------------------+ | | 534 | \ (creates loop) | | 535 | \ | | 536 +-------------+ +-----------------+ | | 537 | Resource R1 | | Collection C2 | | | 538 +-------------+ | bindings: | | | 539 | y.gif CollZ | | | 540 +-----------------+ | | 541 | | | | 542 | +-------+ | 543 | | 544 +-------------+ | 545 | Resource R2 | | 546 +-------------+ | 547 | 548 +-------------------------------+ 549 | 550 +-------------------+ 551 | Collection C3 |<------------------+ 552 | bindings: | | 553 | x.gif CollY | | 554 +-------------------+ | 555 | \ (creates loop) | 556 | \ | 557 +-------------+ +-----------------+ | 558 | Resource R3 | | Collection C4 | | 559 +-------------+ | bindings: | | 560 | y.gif CollZ | | 561 +-----------------+ | 562 | | | 563 | +-------+ 564 | 565 +-------------+ 566 | Resource R4 | 567 +-------------+ 569 2.3.2. Example: COPY updating multiple Bindings 571 Given the following collection hierarchy: 573 +------------------+ 574 | Root Collection | 575 | bindings: | 576 | CollX CollY | 577 +------------------+ 578 / \ 579 / \ 580 / \ 581 +--------------------------+ +-----------------+ 582 | Collection C1 | | Collection C2 | 583 | bindings: | | bindings: | 584 | x.gif y.gif | | x.gif y.gif | 585 +--------------------------+ +-----------------+ 586 | | | | 587 | | | | 588 +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ 589 | Resource R1 | | Resource R2 | | Resource R3 | 590 +-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+ 592 A COPY of /CollX with Depth infinity to /CollY will not result in a 593 changed hierarchy, and Resource R3 will be updated with the content 594 of either Resource R1 or Resource R2. 596 2.3.3. Example: COPY with 'Depth: infinity' with Multiple Bindings to a 597 Leaf Resource 599 Given the following collection hierarchy: 601 +------------------+ 602 | Root Collection | 603 | bindings: | 604 | CollX | 605 +------------------+ 606 | 607 | 608 | 609 +----------------+ 610 | Collection C1 | 611 | bindings: | 612 | x.gif y.gif | 613 +----------------+ 614 | | 615 | | 616 +-------------+ 617 | Resource R1 | 618 +-------------+ 620 A COPY of /CollX with Depth infinity to /CollY results in the 621 following collection hierarchy: 623 +------------------+ 624 | Root Collection | 625 | bindings: | 626 | CollX CollY | 627 +------------------+ 628 | \ 629 | \ 630 | \ 631 +----------------+ +-----------------+ 632 | Collection C1 | | Collection C2 | 633 | bindings: | | bindings: | 634 | x.gif y.gif | | x.gif y.gif | 635 +----------------+ +-----------------+ 636 | | | | 637 | | | | 638 +-------------+ +-------------+ 639 | Resource R1 | | Resource R2 | 640 +-------------+ +-------------+ 642 2.4. DELETE and Bindings 644 When there are multiple bindings to a resource, a DELETE applied to 645 that resource MUST NOT remove any bindings to that resource other 646 than the one identified by the Request-URI. For example, suppose the 647 collection identified by the URI "/a" has a binding named "x" to a 648 resource R, and another collection identified by "/b" has a binding 649 named "y" to the same resource R. Then a DELETE applied to "/a/x" 650 removes the binding named "x" from "/a" but MUST NOT remove the 651 binding named "y" from "/b" (i.e. after the DELETE, "/y/b" continues 652 to identify the resource R). 654 When DELETE is applied to a collection, it MUST NOT modify the 655 membership of any other collection that is not itself a member of the 656 collection being deleted. For example, if both "/a/.../x" and 657 "/b/.../y" identify the same collection, C, then applying DELETE to 658 "/a" must not delete an internal member from C or from any other 659 collection that is a member of C, because that would modify the 660 membership of "/b". 662 If a collection supports the UNBIND method (see Section 5), a DELETE 663 of an internal member of a collection MAY be implemented as an UNBIND 664 request. In this case, applying DELETE to a Request-URI has the 665 effect of removing the binding identified by the final segment of the 666 Request-URI from the collection identified by the Request-URI minus 667 its final segment. Although [RFC4918] allows a DELETE to be a non- 668 atomic operation, when the DELETE operation is implemented as an 669 UNBIND, the operation is atomic. In particular, a DELETE on a 670 hierarchy of resources is simply the removal of a binding to the 671 collection identified by the Request-URI. 673 2.5. MOVE and Bindings 675 When MOVE is applied to a resource, the other bindings to that 676 resource MUST be unaffected, and if the resource being moved is a 677 collection, the bindings to any members of that collection MUST be 678 unaffected. Also, if MOVE is used with Overwrite:T to delete an 679 existing resource, the constraints specified for DELETE apply. 681 If the destination collection of a MOVE request supports the REBIND 682 method (see Section 6), a MOVE of a resource into that collection MAY 683 be implemented as a REBIND request. Although [RFC4918] allows a MOVE 684 to be a non-atomic operation, when the MOVE operation is implemented 685 as a REBIND, the operation is atomic. In particular, applying a MOVE 686 to a Request-URI and a Destination URI has the effect of removing a 687 binding to a resource (at the Request-URI), and creating a new 688 binding to that resource (at the Destination URI). Even when the 689 Request-URI identifies a collection, the MOVE operation involves only 690 removing one binding to that collection and adding another. 692 2.5.1. Example: Simple MOVE 694 As an example, suppose that a MOVE is issued to URI-3 for resource R 695 below (which is also mapped to URI-1 and URI-2), with the Destination 696 header set to URI-X. After successful completion of the MOVE 697 operation, a new binding has been created which creates the URI 698 mapping between URI-X and resource R. The binding corresponding to 699 the final segment of URI-3 has been removed, which also causes the 700 URI mapping between URI-3 and R to be removed. If resource R were a 701 collection, old URI-3 based mappings to members of R would have been 702 removed, and new URI-X based mappings to members of R would have been 703 created. 705 >> Before Request: 707 URI-1 URI-2 URI-3 708 | | | 709 | | | <---- URI Mappings 710 | | | 711 +---------------------+ 712 | Resource R | 713 +---------------------+ 715 >> After Request: 717 URI-1 URI-2 URI-X 718 | | | 719 | | | <---- URI Mappings 720 | | | 721 +---------------------+ 722 | Resource R | 723 +---------------------+ 725 2.5.2. Example: MOVE Request causing a Bind Loop 727 Note that in the presence of collection bindings, a MOVE request can 728 cause the creating of a bind loop. 730 Consider a the top level collections C1 and C2 with URIs "/CollW/" 731 and "/CollX/". C1 also contains an additional binding named "CollY" 732 to C2: 734 +------------------+ 735 | Root Collection | 736 | bindings: | 737 | CollW CollX | 738 +------------------+ 739 | | 740 | | 741 +------------------+ | 742 | Collection C1 | | 743 | bindings: | | 744 | CollY | | 745 +------------------+ | 746 | | 747 | | 748 +------------------+ 749 | Collection C2 | 750 | | 751 | | 752 +------------------+ 754 In this case, the MOVE request below would cause a bind loop: 756 >> Request: 758 MOVE /CollW HTTP/1.1 759 Host: example.com 760 Destination: /CollX/CollZ 761 If the request succeeded, the resulting state would be: 763 +------------------+ 764 | Root Collection | 765 | bindings: | 766 | CollX | 767 +------------------+ 768 | 769 | 770 +------------------+ | 771 | Collection C1 | | 772 +----> | bindings: | | 773 | | CollY | | 774 | +------------------+ | 775 | | | 776 | | | 777 | +------------------+ 778 | | Collection C2 | 779 | | bindings: | 780 | | CollZ | 781 | +------------------+ 782 | | 783 | | 784 +-------------------+ 786 2.6. PROPFIND and Bindings 788 Consistent with [RFC4918], the value of a dead property MUST be 789 independent of the number of bindings to its host resource or of the 790 path submitted to PROPFIND. On the other hand, the behaviour for 791 each live property depends on its individual definition (for example, 792 see [RFC3744], Section 5, paragraph 2 for a case where the value is 793 independent of path and bindings, and [RFC4918], Section 8.8 for a 794 discussion about the live properties DAV:getetag and DAV: 795 getlastmodified, which may behave differently). 797 2.7. Determining Whether Two Bindings Are to the Same Resource 799 It is useful to have some way of determining whether two bindings are 800 to the same resource. Two resources might have identical contents 801 and properties, but not be the same resource (e.g. an update to one 802 resource does not affect the other resource). 804 The REQUIRED DAV:resource-id property defined in Section 3.1 is a 805 resource identifier, which MUST be unique across all resources for 806 all time. If the values of DAV:resource-id returned by PROPFIND 807 requests through two bindings are identical character by character, 808 the client can be assured that the two bindings are to the same 809 resource. 811 The DAV:resource-id property is created, and its value assigned, when 812 the resource is created. The value of DAV:resource-id MUST NOT be 813 changed. Even after the resource is no longer accessible through any 814 URI, that value MUST NOT be reassigned to another resource's DAV: 815 resource-id property. 817 Any method that creates a new resource MUST assign a new, unique 818 value to its DAV:resource-id property. For example, a PUT applied to 819 a null resource, COPY (when not overwriting an existing target) and 820 CHECKIN (see [RFC3253], Section 4.4) must assign a new, unique value 821 to the DAV:resource-id property of the new resource they create. 823 On the other hand, any method that affects an existing resource must 824 not change the value of its DAV:resource-id property. Specifically, 825 a PUT or a COPY that updates an existing resource must not change the 826 value of its DAV:resource-id property. A REBIND, since it does not 827 create a new resource, but only changes the location of an existing 828 resource, must not change the value of the DAV:resource-id property. 830 2.8. Discovering the Bindings to a Resource 832 An OPTIONAL DAV:parent-set property on a resource provides a list of 833 the bindings that associate a collection and a URI segment with that 834 resource. If the DAV:parent-set property exists on a given resource, 835 it MUST contain a complete list of all bindings to that resource that 836 the client is authorized to see. When deciding whether to support 837 the DAV:parent-set property, server implementers / administrators 838 should balance the benefits it provides against the cost of 839 maintaining the property and the security risks enumerated in 840 Sections 11.4 and 11.5. 842 3. Properties 844 The bind feature introduces the properties defined below. 846 A DAV:allprop PROPFIND request SHOULD NOT return any of the 847 properties defined by this document. This allows a binding server to 848 perform efficiently when a naive client, which does not understand 849 the cost of asking a server to compute all possible live properties, 850 issues a DAV:allprop PROPFIND request. 852 3.1. DAV:resource-id Property 854 The DAV:resource-id property is a REQUIRED property that enables 855 clients to determine whether two bindings are to the same resource. 857 The value of DAV:resource-id is a URI, and may use any registered URI 858 scheme that guarantees the uniqueness of the value across all 859 resources for all time (e.g. the urn:uuid: URN namespace defined in 860 [RFC4122] or the opaquelocktoken: URI scheme defined in [RFC4918]). 862 864 3.2. DAV:parent-set Property 866 The DAV:parent-set property is an OPTIONAL property that enables 867 clients to discover what collections contain a binding to this 868 resource (i.e. what collections have that resource as an internal 869 member). It contains an href/segment pair for each collection that 870 has a binding to the resource. The href identifies the collection, 871 and the segment identifies the binding name of that resource in that 872 collection. 874 A given collection MUST appear only once in the DAV:parent-set for 875 any given binding, even if there are multiple URI mappings to that 876 collection. 878 879 880 881 884 3.2.1. Example for DAV:parent-set Property 886 For example, if collection C1 is mapped to both /CollX and /CollY, 887 and C1 contains a binding named "x.gif" to a resource R1, then either 888 [/CollX, x.gif] or [/CollY, x.gif] can appear in the DAV:parent-set 889 of R1, but not both. But if C1 also had a binding named "y.gif" to 890 R1, then there would be two entries for C1 in the DAV:parent-set of 891 R1 (i.e. both [/CollX, x.gif] and [/CollX, y.gif] or, alternatively, 892 both [/CollY, x.gif] and [/CollY, y.gif]). 894 +-------------------------+ 895 | Root Collection | 896 | bindings: | 897 | CollX CollY | 898 +-------------------------+ 899 | / 900 | / 901 | / 902 +-----------------+ 903 | Collection C1 | 904 | bindings: | 905 | x.gif y.gif | 906 +-----------------+ 907 | | 908 | | 909 | | 910 +-------------+ 911 | Resource R1 | 912 +-------------+ 914 In this case, one possible value for DAV:parent-set property on 915 "/CollX/x.gif" would be: 917 918 919 /CollX 920 x.gif 921 922 923 /CollX 924 y.gif 925 926 928 4. BIND Method 930 The BIND method modifies the collection identified by the Request- 931 URI, by adding a new binding from the segment specified in the BIND 932 body to the resource identified in the BIND body. 934 If a server cannot guarantee the integrity of the binding, the BIND 935 request MUST fail. Note that it is especially difficult to maintain 936 the integrity of cross-server bindings. Unless the server where the 937 resource resides knows about all bindings on all servers to that 938 resource, it may unwittingly destroy the resource or make it 939 inaccessible without notifying another server that manages a binding 940 to the resource. For example, if server A permits creation of a 941 binding to a resource on server B, server A must notify server B 942 about its binding and must have an agreement with B that B will not 943 destroy the resource while A's binding exists. Otherwise server B 944 may receive a DELETE request that it thinks removes the last binding 945 to the resource and destroy the resource while A's binding still 946 exists. The precondition DAV:cross-server-binding is defined below 947 for cases where servers fail cross-server BIND requests because they 948 cannot guarantee the integrity of cross-server bindings. 950 By default, if there already is a binding for the specified segment 951 in the collection, the new binding replaces the existing binding. 952 This default binding replacement behavior can be overridden using the 953 Overwrite header defined in Section 10.6 of [RFC4918]. 955 If a BIND request fails, the server state preceding the request MUST 956 be restored. This method is unsafe and idempotent (see [RFC2616], 957 Section 9.1). 959 Marshalling: 961 The request MAY include an Overwrite header. 963 The request body MUST be a DAV:bind XML element. 965 967 If the request succeeds, the server MUST return 201 (Created) when 968 a new binding was created and 200 (OK) or 204 (No Content) when an 969 existing binding was replaced. 971 If a response body for a successful request is included, it MUST 972 be a DAV:bind-response XML element. Note that this document does 973 not define any elements for the BIND response body, but the DAV: 974 bind-response element is defined to ensure interoperability 975 between future extensions that do define elements for the BIND 976 response body. 978 980 Preconditions: 982 (DAV:bind-into-collection): The Request-URI MUST identify a 983 collection. 985 (DAV:bind-source-exists): The DAV:href element MUST identify a 986 resource. 988 (DAV:binding-allowed): The resource identified by the DAV:href 989 supports multiple bindings to it. 991 (DAV:cross-server-binding): If the resource identified by the DAV: 992 href element in the request body is on another server from the 993 collection identified by the Request-URI, the server MUST support 994 cross-server bindings (servers that do not support cross-server 995 bindings can use this condition code to signal the client exactly 996 why the request failed). 998 (DAV:name-allowed): The name specified by the DAV:segment is 999 available for use as a new binding name. 1001 (DAV:can-overwrite): If the collection already contains a binding 1002 with the specified path segment, and if an Overwrite header is 1003 included, the value of the Overwrite header MUST be "T". 1005 (DAV:cycle-allowed): If the DAV:href element identifies a 1006 collection, and if the Request-URI identifies a collection that is 1007 a member of that collection, the server MUST support cycles in the 1008 URI namespace (servers that do not support cycles can use this 1009 condition code to signal the client exactly why the request 1010 failed). 1012 (DAV:locked-update-allowed): If the collection identified by the 1013 Request-URI is write-locked, then the appropriate token MUST be 1014 specified in an If request header. 1016 (DAV:locked-overwrite-allowed): If the collection already contains 1017 a binding with the specified path segment, and if that binding is 1018 protected by a write-lock, then the appropriate token MUST be 1019 specified in an If request header. 1021 Postconditions: 1023 (DAV:new-binding): The collection MUST have a binding that maps 1024 the segment specified in the DAV:segment element in the request 1025 body, to the resource identified by the DAV:href element in the 1026 request body. 1028 4.1. Example: BIND 1030 >> Request: 1032 BIND /CollY HTTP/1.1 1033 Host: www.example.com 1034 Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8" 1035 Content-Length: 172 1037 1038 1039 bar.html 1040 http://www.example.com/CollX/foo.html 1041 1043 >> Response: 1045 HTTP/1.1 201 Created 1046 Location: http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html 1048 The server added a new binding to the collection, 1049 "http://www.example.com/CollY", associating "bar.html" with the 1050 resource identified by the URI 1051 "http://www.example.com/CollX/foo.html". Clients can now use the URI 1052 "http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html" to submit requests to that 1053 resource. 1055 5. UNBIND Method 1057 The UNBIND method modifies the collection identified by the Request- 1058 URI, by removing the binding identified by the segment specified in 1059 the UNBIND body. 1061 Once a resource is unreachable by any URI mapping, the server MAY 1062 reclaim system resources associated with that resource. If UNBIND 1063 removes a binding to a resource, but there remain URI mappings to 1064 that resource, the server MUST NOT reclaim system resources 1065 associated with the resource. 1067 If an UNBIND request fails, the server state preceding the request 1068 MUST be restored. This method is unsafe and idempotent (see 1069 [RFC2616], Section 9.1). 1071 Marshalling: 1073 The request body MUST be a DAV:unbind XML element. 1075 1077 If the request succeeds, the server MUST return 200 (OK) or 204 1078 (No Content) when the binding was successfully deleted. 1080 If a response body for a successful request is included, it MUST 1081 be a DAV:unbind-response XML element. Note that this document 1082 does not define any elements for the UNBIND response body, but the 1083 DAV:unbind-response element is defined to ensure interoperability 1084 between future extensions that do define elements for the UNBIND 1085 response body. 1087 1089 Preconditions: 1091 (DAV:unbind-from-collection): The Request-URI MUST identify a 1092 collection. 1094 (DAV:unbind-source-exists): The DAV:segment element MUST identify 1095 a binding in the collection identified by the Request-URI. 1097 (DAV:locked-update-allowed): If the collection identified by the 1098 Request-URI is write-locked, then the appropriate token MUST be 1099 specified in the request. 1101 (DAV:protected-url-deletion-allowed): If the binding identified by 1102 the segment is protected by a write-lock, then the appropriate 1103 token MUST be specified in the request. 1105 Postconditions: 1107 (DAV:binding-deleted): The collection MUST NOT have a binding for 1108 the segment specified in the DAV:segment element in the request 1109 body. 1111 (DAV:lock-deleted): If the internal member URI of the binding 1112 specified by the Request-URI and the DAV:segment element in the 1113 request body was protected by a write-lock at the time of the 1114 request, that write-lock must have been deleted by the request. 1116 5.1. Example: UNBIND 1118 >> Request: 1120 UNBIND /CollX HTTP/1.1 1121 Host: www.example.com 1122 Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8" 1123 Content-Length: 117 1125 1126 1127 foo.html 1128 1130 >> Response: 1132 HTTP/1.1 200 OK 1134 The server removed the binding named "foo.html" from the collection, 1135 "http://www.example.com/CollX". A request to the resource named 1136 "http://www.example.com/CollX/foo.html" will return a 404 (Not Found) 1137 response. 1139 6. REBIND Method 1141 The REBIND method removes a binding to a resource from a collection, 1142 and adds a binding to that resource into the collection identified by 1143 the Request-URI. The request body specifies the binding to be added 1144 (segment) and the old binding to be removed (href). It is 1145 effectively an atomic form of a MOVE request, and MUST be treated the 1146 same way as MOVE for the purpose of determining access permissions. 1148 If a REBIND request fails, the server state preceding the request 1149 MUST be restored. This method is unsafe and idempotent (see 1150 [RFC2616], Section 9.1). 1152 Marshalling: 1154 The request MAY include an Overwrite header. 1156 The request body MUST be a DAV:rebind XML element. 1158 1160 If the request succeeds, the server MUST return 201 (Created) when 1161 a new binding was created and 200 (OK) or 204 (No Content) when an 1162 existing binding was replaced. 1164 If a response body for a successful request is included, it MUST 1165 be a DAV:rebind-response XML element. Note that this document 1166 does not define any elements for the REBIND response body, but the 1167 DAV:rebind-response element is defined to ensure interoperability 1168 between future extensions that do define elements for the REBIND 1169 response body. 1171 1173 Preconditions: 1175 (DAV:rebind-into-collection): The Request-URI MUST identify a 1176 collection. 1178 (DAV:rebind-source-exists): The DAV:href element MUST identify a 1179 resource. 1181 (DAV:cross-server-binding): If the resource identified by the DAV: 1182 href element in the request body is on another server from the 1183 collection identified by the Request-URI, the server MUST support 1184 cross-server bindings (servers that do not support cross-server 1185 bindings can use this condition code to signal the client exactly 1186 why the request failed). 1188 (DAV:name-allowed): The name specified by the DAV:segment is 1189 available for use as a new binding name. 1191 (DAV:can-overwrite): If the collection already contains a binding 1192 with the specified path segment, and if an Overwrite header is 1193 included, the value of the Overwrite header MUST be "T". 1195 (DAV:cycle-allowed): If the DAV:href element identifies a 1196 collection, and if the Request-URI identifies a collection that is 1197 a member of that collection, the server MUST support cycles in the 1198 URI namespace (servers that do not support cycles can use this 1199 condition code to signal the client exactly why the request 1200 failed). 1202 (DAV:locked-update-allowed): If the collection identified by the 1203 Request-URI is write-locked, then the appropriate token MUST be 1204 specified in the request. 1206 (DAV:protected-url-modification-allowed): If the collection 1207 identified by the Request-URI already contains a binding with the 1208 specified path segment, and if that binding is protected by a 1209 write-lock, then the appropriate token MUST be specified in the 1210 request. 1212 (DAV:locked-source-collection-update-allowed): If the collection 1213 identified by the parent collection prefix of the DAV:href URI is 1214 write-locked, then the appropriate token MUST be specified in the 1215 request. 1217 (DAV:protected-source-url-deletion-allowed): If the DAV:href URI 1218 is protected by a write lock, then the appropriate token MUST be 1219 specified in the request. 1221 Postconditions: 1223 (DAV:new-binding): The collection MUST have a binding that maps 1224 the segment specified in the DAV:segment element in the request 1225 body, to the resource that was identified by the DAV:href element 1226 in the request body. 1228 (DAV:binding-deleted): The URL specified in the DAV:href element 1229 in the request body MUST NOT be mapped to a resource. 1231 (DAV:lock-deleted): If the URL specified in the DAV:href element 1232 in the request body was protected by a write-lock at the time of 1233 the request, that write-lock must have been deleted by the 1234 request. 1236 6.1. Example: REBIND 1238 >> Request: 1240 REBIND /CollX HTTP/1.1 1241 Host: www.example.com 1242 Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8" 1243 Content-Length: 176 1245 1246 1247 foo.html 1248 http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html 1249 1251 >> Response: 1253 HTTP/1.1 200 OK 1255 The server added a new binding to the collection, 1256 "http://www.example.com/CollX", associating "foo.html" with the 1257 resource identified by the URI 1258 "http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html", and removes the binding 1259 named "bar.html" from the collection identified by the URI 1260 "http://www.example.com/CollY". Clients can now use the URI 1261 "http://www.example.com/CollX/foo.html" to submit requests to that 1262 resource, and requests on the URI 1263 "http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html" will fail with a 404 (Not 1264 Found) response. 1266 6.2. Example: REBIND in Presence of Locks and Bind Loops 1268 To illustrate the effects of locks and bind loops on a REBIND 1269 operation, consider the following collection: 1271 +------------------+ 1272 | Root Collection | 1273 | bindings: | 1274 | CollW | 1275 +------------------+ 1276 | 1277 | 1278 | 1279 +-------------------------------+ 1280 | Collection C1 |<--------+ 1281 | LOCKED infinity | | 1282 | (lock token L1) | | 1283 | bindings: | | 1284 | CollX CollY | | 1285 +-------------------------------+ | 1286 | | | 1287 | | (creates loop) | 1288 | | | 1289 +-----------------+ +------------------+ | 1290 | Collection C2 | | Collection C3 | | 1291 | (inherit lock) | | (inherit lock) | | 1292 | (lock token L1) | | (lock token L1) | | 1293 | bindings: | | bindings: | | 1294 | {none} | | y.gif CollZ | | 1295 +-----------------+ +------------------+ | 1296 | | | 1297 | +-----+ 1298 | 1299 +---------------------------+ 1300 | Resource R2 | 1301 | (lock inherited from C1) | 1302 | (lock token L1) | 1303 +---------------------------+ 1305 (where L1 is "urn:uuid:f92d4fae-7012-11ab-a765-00c0ca1f6bf9"). 1307 Note that the binding between CollZ and C1 creates a loop in the 1308 containment hierarchy. Servers are not required to support such 1309 loops, though the server in this example does. 1311 The REBIND request below will remove the segment "CollZ" from C3 and 1312 add a new binding from "CollA" to the collection C2. 1314 REBIND /CollW/CollX HTTP/1.1 1315 Host: www.example.com 1316 If: () 1317 Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8" 1318 Content-Length: 152 1320 1321 1322 CollA 1323 /CollW/CollY/CollZ 1324 1325 The outcome of the REBIND operation is: 1327 +------------------+ 1328 | Root Collection | 1329 | bindings: | 1330 | CollW | 1331 +------------------+ 1332 | 1333 | 1334 | 1335 +-------------------------------+ 1336 | Collection C1 | 1337 | LOCKED infinity | 1338 | (lock token L1) | 1339 | bindings: | 1340 | CollX CollY | 1341 +-------------------------------+ 1342 | ^ | 1343 | | | 1344 +-----------------+ | +------------------+ 1345 | Collection C2 | | | Collection C3 | 1346 |(inherited lock) | | | (inherited lock) | 1347 |(lock token L1) | | | (lock token L1) | 1348 | bindings: | | | bindings: | 1349 | CollA | | | y.gif | 1350 +-----------------+ | +------------------+ 1351 | | | 1352 +---------------+ | 1353 (creates loop) | 1354 +---------------------------+ 1355 | Resource R2 | 1356 | (inherited lock from C1) | 1357 | (lock token L1) | 1358 +---------------------------+ 1360 7. Additional Status Codes 1362 7.1. 208 Already Reported 1364 The 208 (Already Reported) status code can be used inside a DAV: 1365 propstat response element to avoid enumerating the internal members 1366 of multiple bindings to the same collection repeatedly. For each 1367 binding to a collection inside the request's scope, only one will be 1368 reported with a 200 status, while subsequent DAV:response elements 1369 for all other bindings will use the 208 status, and no DAV:response 1370 elements for their descendants are included. 1372 Note that the 208 status will only occur for "Depth: infinity" 1373 requests, and that it is of particular importance when the multiple 1374 collection bindings cause a bind loop as discussed in Section 2.2. 1376 A client can request the DAV:resource-id property in a PROPFIND 1377 request to guarantee that they can accurately reconstruct the binding 1378 structure of a collection with multiple bindings to a single 1379 resource. 1381 For backward compatibility with clients not aware of the 208 status 1382 code appearing in multistatus response bodies, it SHOULD NOT be used 1383 unless the client has signalled support for this specification using 1384 the "DAV" request header (see Section 8.2). Instead, a 506 status 1385 should be returned when a binding loop is discovered. This allows 1386 the server to return the 506 as the top level return status, if it 1387 discovers it before it started the response, or in the middle of a 1388 multistatus, if it discovers it in the middle of streaming out a 1389 multistatus response. 1391 7.1.1. Example: PROPFIND by Bind-Aware Client 1393 For example, consider a PROPFIND request on /Coll (bound to 1394 collection C), where the members of /Coll are /Coll/Foo (bound to 1395 resource R) and /Coll/Bar (bound to collection C). 1397 >> Request: 1399 PROPFIND /Coll/ HTTP/1.1 1400 Host: www.example.com 1401 Depth: infinity 1402 DAV: bind 1403 Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8" 1404 Content-Length: 152 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1414 >> Response: 1416 HTTP/1.1 207 Multi-Status 1417 Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8" 1418 Content-Length: 1241 1420 1421 1422 1423 http://www.example.com/Coll/ 1424 1425 1426 Loop Demo 1427 1428 urn:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf8 1430 1431 1432 HTTP/1.1 200 OK 1433 1434 1435 1436 http://www.example.com/Coll/Foo 1437 1438 1439 Bird Inventory 1440 1441 urn:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf9 1443 1444 1445 HTTP/1.1 200 OK 1446 1447 1448 1449 http://www.example.com/Coll/Bar 1450 1451 1452 Loop Demo 1453 1454 urn:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf8 1456 1457 1458 HTTP/1.1 208 Already Reported 1459 1460 1461 1463 7.1.2. Example: PROPFIND by Non-Bind-Aware Client 1465 In this example, the client isn't aware of the 208 status code 1466 introduced by this specification. As the "Depth: infinity" PROPFIND 1467 request would cause a loop condition, the whole request is rejected 1468 with a 506 status. 1470 >> Request: 1472 PROPFIND /Coll/ HTTP/1.1 1473 Host: www.example.com 1474 Depth: infinity 1475 Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8" 1476 Content-Length: 125 1478 1479 1480 1481 1483 >> Response: 1485 HTTP/1.1 506 Loop Detected 1487 7.2. 506 Loop Detected 1489 The 506 (Loop Detected) status code indicates that the server 1490 terminated an operation because it encountered an infinite loop while 1491 processing a request with "Depth: infinity". This status indicates 1492 that the entire operation failed. 1494 8. Capability Discovery 1496 8.1. OPTIONS Method 1498 If the server supports bindings, it MUST return the compliance class 1499 name "bind" as a field in the "DAV" response header (see [RFC4918], 1500 Section 10.1) from an OPTIONS request on any resource implemented by 1501 that server. A value of "bind" in the "DAV" header MUST indicate 1502 that the server supports all MUST level requirements and REQUIRED 1503 features specified in this document. 1505 8.2. 'DAV' Request Header 1507 Clients SHOULD signal support for all MUST level requirements and 1508 REQUIRED features by submitting a "DAV" request header containing the 1509 compliance class name "bind". In particular, the client MUST 1510 understand the 208 status code defined in Section 7.1. 1512 9. Relationship to WebDAV Access Control Protocol 1514 BIND and REBIND behave the same as MOVE with respect to the DAV:acl 1515 property (see [RFC3744], Section 7.3). 1517 10. Relationship to Versioning Extensions to WebDAV 1519 Servers that implement Workspaces ([RFC3253], Section 6) and Version 1520 Controlled Collections ([RFC3253], Section 14) already need to 1521 implement BIND-like behaviour in order to handle UPDATE and 1522 UNCHECKOUT semantics. 1524 Consider a workspace "/ws1/", containing the version-controlled, 1525 checked-out collections C1 and C2, named "/ws1/CollX" and "/ws1/ 1526 CollY", and a version-controlled resource R, bound to C1 as "/ws1/ 1527 CollX/test": 1529 +-------------------------+ 1530 | Workspace | 1531 | bindings: | 1532 | CollX CollY | 1533 +-------------------------+ 1534 | | 1535 | | 1536 | | 1537 +---------------+ +---------------+ 1538 | Collection C1 | | Collection C2 | 1539 | bindings: | | | 1540 | test | | | 1541 +---------------+ +---------------+ 1542 | 1543 | 1544 | 1545 +------------------+ 1546 | Resource R | 1547 +------------------+ 1549 Moving "/ws1/CollX/test" into "/ws1/CollY", checking in C2, but 1550 undoing the checkout on C1 will undo part of the MOVE request, thus 1551 restoring the binding from C1 to R, but keeping the new binding from 1552 C2 to R: 1554 >> Request: 1556 MOVE /ws1/CollX/test HTTP/1.1 1557 Host: www.example.com 1558 Destination: /ws1/CollY/test 1560 >> Response: 1562 HTTP/1.1 204 No Content 1564 >> Request: 1566 CHECKIN /ws1/CollY/ HTTP/1.1 1567 Host: www.example.com 1569 >> Response: 1571 HTTP/1.1 201 Created 1572 Cache-Control: no-cache 1573 Location: http://repo.example.com/his/17/ver/42 1575 >> Request: 1577 UNCHECKOUT /ws1/CollX/ HTTP/1.1 1578 Host: www.example.com 1580 >> Response: 1582 HTTP/1.1 200 OK 1583 Cache-Control: no-cache 1585 As a result, both C1 and C2 would have a binding to R: 1587 +-------------------------+ 1588 | Workspace | 1589 | bindings: | 1590 | CollX CollY | 1591 +-------------------------+ 1592 | | 1593 | | 1594 | | 1595 +---------------+ +---------------+ 1596 | Collection C1 | | Collection C2 | 1597 | bindings: | | bindings: | 1598 | test | | test | 1599 +---------------+ +---------------+ 1600 | | 1601 | | 1602 | | 1603 +------------------+ 1604 | Resource R | 1605 +------------------+ 1607 The MOVE semantics defined in Section 3.15 of [RFC3253] already 1608 require that "/ws1/CollX/test" and "/ws1/CollY/test" will have the 1609 same version history (as exposed in the DAV:version-history 1610 property). Furthermore, the UNCHECKOUT semantics (which in this case 1611 is similar to UPDATE, see Section 14.11 of [RFC3253]) require: 1613 ...If a new version-controlled member is in a workspace that 1614 already has a version-controlled resource for that version 1615 history, then the new version-controlled member MUST be just a 1616 binding (i.e., another name for) that existing version-controlled 1617 resource... 1619 Thus, "/ws1/CollX/test" and "/ws1/CollY/test" will be bindings to the 1620 same resource R, and have identical DAV:resource-id properties. 1622 11. Security Considerations 1624 This section is provided to make WebDAV implementors aware of the 1625 security implications of this protocol. 1627 All of the security considerations of HTTP/1.1 ([RFC2616], Section 1628 15) and the WebDAV Distributed Authoring Protocol specification 1629 ([RFC4918], Section 20) also apply to this protocol specification. 1630 In addition, bindings introduce several new security concerns and 1631 increase the risk of some existing threats. These issues are 1632 detailed below. 1634 11.1. Privacy Concerns 1636 In a context where cross-server bindings are supported, creating 1637 bindings on a trusted server may make it possible for a hostile agent 1638 to induce users to send private information to a target on a 1639 different server. 1641 11.2. Bind Loops 1643 Although bind loops were already possible in HTTP 1.1, the 1644 introduction of the BIND method creates a new avenue for clients to 1645 create loops accidentally or maliciously. If the binding and its 1646 target are on the same server, the server may be able to detect BIND 1647 requests that would create loops. Servers are required to detect 1648 loops that are caused by bindings to collections during the 1649 processing of any requests with "Depth: infinity". 1651 11.3. Bindings, and Denial of Service 1653 Denial of service attacks were already possible by posting URIs that 1654 were intended for limited use at heavily used Web sites. The 1655 introduction of BIND creates a new avenue for similar denial of 1656 service attacks. If cross-server bindings are supported, clients can 1657 now create bindings at heavily used sites to target locations that 1658 were not designed for heavy usage. 1660 11.4. Private Locations May Be Revealed 1662 If the DAV:parent-set property is maintained on a resource, the 1663 owners of the bindings risk revealing private locations. The 1664 directory structures where bindings are located are available to 1665 anyone who has access to the DAV:parent-set property on the resource. 1666 Moving a binding may reveal its new location to anyone with access to 1667 DAV:parent-set on its resource. 1669 11.5. DAV:parent-set and Denial of Service 1671 If the server maintains the DAV:parent-set property in response to 1672 bindings created in other administrative domains, it is exposed to 1673 hostile attempts to make it devote resources to adding bindings to 1674 the list. 1676 12. Internationalization Considerations 1678 All internationalization considerations mentioned in Section 19 of 1679 [RFC4918] also apply to this document. 1681 13. IANA Considerations 1683 Section 7 defines the HTTP status codes 208 (Already Reported) and 1684 506 (Loop Detected), to be added to the registry at 1685 . 1687 14. Acknowledgements 1689 This document is the collaborative product of the authors and Tyson 1690 Chihaya, Jim Davis, Chuck Fay and Judith Slein. It has benefited 1691 from thoughtful discussion by Jim Amsden, Peter Carlson, Steve 1692 Carter, Ken Coar, Ellis Cohen, Dan Connolly, Bruce Cragun, Cyrus 1693 Daboo, Spencer Dawkins, Mark Day, Werner Donne, Rajiv Dulepet, David 1694 Durand, Lisa Dusseault, Stefan Eissing, Roy Fielding, Yaron Goland, 1695 Joe Hildebrand, Fred Hitt, Alex Hopmann, James Hunt, Marcus Jager, 1696 Chris Kaler, Manoj Kasichainula, Rohit Khare, Brian Korver, Daniel 1697 LaLiberte, Steve Martin, Larry Masinter, Jeff McAffer, Alexey 1698 Melnikov, Surendra Koduru Reddy, Max Rible, Sam Ruby, Bradley 1699 Sergeant, Nick Shelness, John Stracke, John Tigue, John Turner, Kevin 1700 Wiggen, and other members of the concluded WebDAV working group. 1702 15. References 1704 15.1. Normative References 1706 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1707 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 1709 [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 1710 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext 1711 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. 1713 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 1714 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 1715 RFC 3986, January 2005. 1717 [RFC4918] Dusseault, L., Ed., "HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed 1718 Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)", RFC 4918, June 2007. 1720 [XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E., and 1721 F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth 1722 Edition)", W3C REC-xml-20081126, November 2008, 1723 . 1725 15.2. Informative References 1727 [RFC3253] Clemm, G., Amsden, J., Ellison, T., Kaler, C., and J. 1728 Whitehead, "Versioning Extensions to WebDAV (Web 1729 Distributed Authoring and Versioning)", RFC 3253, 1730 March 2002. 1732 [RFC3744] Clemm, G., Reschke, J., Sedlar, E., and J. Whitehead, "Web 1733 Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) Access 1734 Control Protocol", RFC 3744, May 2004. 1736 [RFC4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally 1737 Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122, 1738 July 2005. 1740 Appendix A. Clarification to RFC2518bis' Usage of the term 'lock root' 1742 [RFC4918], Section 9.10.1 claims: 1744 A LOCK request to an existing resource will create a lock on the 1745 resource identified by the Request-URI, provided the resource is 1746 not already locked with a conflicting lock. The resource 1747 identified in the Request-URI becomes the root of the lock. 1749 This is misleading in that it implies that the "lock root" is the 1750 directly locked resource, not the URI through which the lock was 1751 requested (see 1752 ). As a matter 1753 of fact, other parts of the specification use the term "lock-root" to 1754 talk about that URI (see [RFC4918], Section 6.1, Item 2, and Section 1755 14.12). With that definition, it becomes clear that a lock affects 1756 the resource identified by the Request-URI (plus optionally its 1757 descendants), plus the URI through which the lock was requested, but 1758 not URIs mapped to that resource due to the existence of additional 1759 bindings. 1761 A clearer description would be: 1763 A LOCK request to an existing resource will create a lock on the 1764 resource identified by the Request-URI, provided the resource is 1765 not already locked with a conflicting lock. The Request-URI 1766 becomes the "lock-root" of the lock. 1768 Note that this change makes the description consistent with the 1769 definition of the DAV:lockroot XML element in Section 14.12 of 1770 [RFC4918]. 1772 Appendix B. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication) 1774 B.1. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-02 1776 Add and resolve issues "2.3_COPY_SHARED_BINDINGS" and 1777 "2.3_MULTIPLE_COPY". Add issue "5.1_LOOP_STATUS" and proposed 1778 resolution, but keep it open. Add issues "ED_references" and 1779 "4_507_status". Started work on index. Rename document to "Binding 1780 Extensions to Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)". 1781 Rename "References" to "Normative References". Close issue 1782 "ED_references". Close issue "4_507_status". 1784 B.2. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-03 1786 Add and close issues "9.2_redirect_loops", "ED_authors" and 1787 "ED_updates". Add section about capability discovery (DAV header). 1788 Close issues "5.1_LOOP_STATUS". Add and resolve new issue 1789 "5.1_506_STATUS_STREAMING". Update XML spec reference. Add issue 1790 "locking" and resolve as invalid. 1792 B.3. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-04 1794 Add and close issues "6_precondition_binding_allowed" and 1795 "6_lock_behaviour". Add mailing list and issues list pointers to 1796 front. 1798 B.4. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-05 1800 Editorial fixes. Add and resolve issues "1.3_error_negotiation", 1801 "2.5_language" and "7.1.1_add_resource_id". Add historical issue 1802 "4_LOCK_BEHAVIOR" and it's resolution for better tracking. 1804 B.5. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-06 1806 Rewrite Editorial Note. Open and resolve issues "2.6_identical", 1807 "specify_safeness_and_idempotence" and "ED_rfc2026_ref". 1809 B.6. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07 1811 Add more index items (no change tracking). Add and resolve issues 1812 "2.3_copy_to_same", "bind_properties", "bind_vs_ACL", 1813 "6_rebind_intro" and "rfc2396bis" (actually an action item). Fix XML 1814 DTD fragment in section 3.3. Make spelling of "Request-URI" 1815 consistent. 1817 B.7. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-08 1819 Resolved editorial issues raised by Jim Whitehead in . 1821 Add and resolve issues "atomicity", "2_allow_destroy", 1822 "2.1_separate_loop_discussion", "2.1.1_bind_loops_vs_locks", 1823 "2.3_copy_depth_infinity", "2.3_copy_example", "2.3_copy_vs_loops", 1824 "2.6_resource-id_vs_versions", "3.2_example" and 1825 "6_rebind_premissions". Add issue "2.6_when_do_ids_change". Re-open 1826 and resolve "6_rebind_intro". 1828 B.8. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-09 1830 Add and resolve issue "6.1_rebind_vs_locks", adding proposed example 1831 text. Add action item "3.1_uuids". Close issue 1832 "2.6_when_do_ids_change". Add and resolve issues 1833 "2.6_bindings_vs_properties" and "uri_draft_ref". 1835 B.9. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-10 1837 Resolve action item "3.1_uuids". Add and resolve issue 1838 "2.7_unlock_vs_bindings". Revisit issue 1839 "2.6_bindings_vs_properties", and remove the part of the sentence 1840 that speaks about live properties. Update "rfc2396bis" references to 1841 "RFC3986". Add issue "9_ns_op_and_acl" and add potential resolution. 1842 Align artwork where applicable (new xml2rfc1.29rc2 feature). 1844 B.10. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-11 1846 Updated [draft-mealling-uuid-urn] to [RFC4122]. Add statement about 1847 live properties in Section 2.6. 1849 B.11. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-12 1851 Updated Author's address. Uppercase "Section" when referring to 1852 other documents. 1854 Updating from RFC2518 to RFC2518bis: 1856 o Remove own explanation of DTD syntax. 1858 o Remove own definition of precondition/postcondition. 1860 o Remove reference to broken RFC2518 language about DELETE and 1861 UNLOCK. 1863 o Remove own definition of DAV: request header. 1865 o Updated "Rationale for Distinguishing Bindings from URI Mappings" 1866 to reflect the changes in [draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis], making 1867 proposals for more changes so that the issue can be closed (see 1868 also 1869 and ). 1872 B.12. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-13 1874 Update [draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518-bis] to draft 14. Update one 1875 incorrect section reference. Remove Section "Rationale for 1876 Distinguishing Bindings from URI Mappings" as 1877 [draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518-bis] now uses the proper definition of 1878 collection state. Examples use application/xml instead of text/xml 1879 MIME type. 1881 Fix IANA section (there are no IANA considerations). 1883 B.13. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-14 1885 Update [draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518-bis] to draft 15. Update [XML] to 1886 4th edition. 1888 Markup ASCII art for box recognition (doesn't affect ASCII version). 1890 Identify Julian Reschke as Editor. 1892 B.14. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-15 1894 Fix typo in RFC2119 keywords section (sorry!). 1896 Update [draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518-bis] to draft 17. 1898 Add and resolve issue "rfc2518bis-lock-root". 1900 B.15. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-16 1902 Add and resolve issue "iana-vs-http-status". 1904 B.16. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-17 1906 Update rfc2518bis reference to draft 18 (note that the bug reported 1907 in 1908 is still present). 1910 B.17. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-18 1912 Update: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis replaced by RFC4918. 1914 B.18. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-19 1916 Add and resolve issues "2.1.1-bind-loops", "2.1.1-cycles", "2.5-move- 1917 creating-cycles", "3.1-clarify-resource-id" and "4-precondition- 1918 language". 1920 B.19. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-20 1922 Use "urn:uuid:" instead of "opaquelocktoken:" scheme in examples. 1923 Replace RFC2518bis issue link by pointer to RFC Errata Page. 1925 Add issues "relation-to-deltav" and "status-codes". 1927 B.20. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-21 1929 Resolve issues "relation-to-deltav" and "status-codes". 1931 Add correct content length values to examples (no change bars). 1933 B.21. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-22 1935 Set "Intended Status" to "Experimental". 1937 Update XML reference to "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth 1938 Edition)". 1940 B.22. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-23 1942 Remove surplus white space from one example. 1944 Fix typo: "DAV:binding-set" -> "DAV:parent-set". 1946 Add and resolve issues "clarify-alternate-uri", "def-integrity", "ex- 1947 copy-multiple-update", "ex-copy-graph", and "ex-live-property". 1949 B.23. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-24 1951 Add and resolve issues "clarify-clarify", "sec-cons-references", 1952 "should-not-update-4918", "should-update-2616", and "webdav-wg-gone". 1954 Appendix C. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor before 1955 publication) 1957 Issues that were either rejected or resolved in this version of this 1958 document. 1960 C.1. edit 1962 Type: edit 1964 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2004-05-30): Umbrella issue for 1965 editorial fixes/enhancements. 1967 C.2. should-not-update-4918 1969 Type: change 1971 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2009-06-04): Based on IESG feedback: 1972 should not state that we update a Standards Track document unless we 1973 have to. 1975 Resolution (2009-06-04): Boilerplate updated. 1977 C.3. sec-cons-references 1979 In Section 11: 1981 Type: edit 1983 kivinen@iki.fi (2009-06-02): Security considerations section refers 1984 to the "HTTP/1.1 and the WebDAV Distributed Authoring Protocol 1985 specification" and says that all security considerations of them also 1986 applies to this document, but it does not give explicit references to 1987 the documents containing those security considerations. 1989 Resolution (2009-06-02): Add the references. 1991 C.4. should-update-2616 1993 In Section 13: 1995 Type: change 1997 adrian.farrel@huawei.com (2009-06-03): 1999 The referenced IANA registry states: 2001 Values to be added to this name space SHOULD be subject to review in 2002 the form of a standards track document within the IETF Applications 2003 Area. Any such document SHOULD be traceable through statuses of 2004 either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates' to the Draft Standard for HTTP/1.1. 2006 ...I only see "updates 4918". Following the trail... 4918 obsoletes 2007 2518 2518 doesn't update or obsolete anything. So I think you need 2008 to add "Updates 2616" 2010 Resolution (2009-06-10): First resolution was: add the clause; but 2011 subsequent discussion with the IESG led to the conclusion it doesn't 2012 need to. HTTPbis is going to take over the status code registry 2013 procedure, and is already working on this issue, see 2014 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/170 (as of this 2015 writing, the plan was to remove the requirement for "updates" -- 2016 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/591, and to 2017 issue an erratum to RFC 2817). 2019 C.5. webdav-wg-gone 2021 In Section 14: 2023 Type: edit 2025 adrian.farrel@huawei.com (2009-06-03): There is no WebDAV WG 2026 (anymore). 2028 Resolution (2009-06-03): Add "concluded". 2030 C.6. clarify-clarify 2032 In Section A: 2034 Type: change 2036 julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2009-06-08): Rephrase this so it 2037 becomes clear this is really a clarification making RFC 4918 2038 consistent internally. 2040 Resolution (2009-06-09): Done. Expand the explanation, rephrase the 2041 clarification. See also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ 2042 w3c-dist-auth/2009AprJun/0020.html. 2044 Index 2046 2 2047 208 Already Reported (status code) 32, 40 2049 5 2050 506 Loop Detected (status code) 35, 40 2052 B 2053 BIND method 22 2054 Marshalling 23 2055 Postconditions 24 2056 Preconditions 23 2057 Binding 7 2058 Binding Integrity 7-8, 22 2060 C 2061 Collection 7 2062 Condition Names 2063 DAV:bind-into-collection (pre) 23 2064 DAV:bind-source-exists (pre) 23 2065 DAV:binding-allowed (pre) 24 2066 DAV:binding-deleted (post) 26, 29 2067 DAV:can-overwrite (pre) 24, 28 2068 DAV:cross-server-binding (pre) 24, 28 2069 DAV:cycle-allowed (pre) 24, 28 2070 DAV:lock-deleted (post) 26, 29 2071 DAV:locked-overwrite-allowed (pre) 24 2072 DAV:locked-source-collection-update-allowed (pre) 29 2073 DAV:locked-update-allowed (pre) 24, 26, 28 2074 DAV:name-allowed (pre) 24, 28 2075 DAV:new-binding (post) 24, 29 2076 DAV:protected-source-url-deletion-allowed (pre) 29 2077 DAV:protected-url-deletion-allowed (pre) 26 2078 DAV:protected-url-modification-allowed (pre) 28 2079 DAV:rebind-from-collection (pre) 28 2080 DAV:rebind-source-exists (pre) 28 2081 DAV:unbind-from-collection (pre) 26 2082 DAV:unbind-source-exists (pre) 26 2084 D 2085 DAV header 2086 compliance class 'bind' 35 2087 DAV:bind-into-collection precondition 23 2088 DAV:bind-source-exists precondition 23 2089 DAV:binding-allowed precondition 24 2090 DAV:binding-deleted postcondition 26, 29 2091 DAV:can-overwrite precondition 24, 28 2092 DAV:cross-server-binding precondition 24, 28 2093 DAV:cycle-allowed precondition 24, 28 2094 DAV:lock-deleted postcondition 26, 29 2095 DAV:locked-overwrite-allowed precondition 24 2096 DAV:locked-source-collection-update-allowed precondition 29 2097 DAV:locked-update-allowed precondition 24, 26, 28 2098 DAV:name-allowed precondition 24, 28 2099 DAV:new-binding postcondition 24, 29 2100 DAV:parent-set property 21 2101 DAV:protected-source-url-deletion-allowed precondition 29 2102 DAV:protected-url-deletion-allowed precondition 26 2103 DAV:protected-url-modification-allowed precondition 28 2104 DAV:rebind-from-collection precondition 28 2105 DAV:rebind-source-exists precondition 28 2106 DAV:resource-id property 20 2107 DAV:unbind-from-collection precondition 26 2108 DAV:unbind-source-exists precondition 26 2110 I 2111 Internal Member URI 7 2113 M 2114 Methods 2115 BIND 22 2116 REBIND 27 2117 UNBIND 25 2119 P 2120 Path Segment 6 2121 Properties 2122 DAV:parent-set 21 2123 DAV:resource-id 20 2125 R 2126 REBIND method 27 2127 Marshalling 27 2128 Postconditions 29 2129 Preconditions 28 2131 S 2132 Status Codes 2133 208 Already Reported 32, 40 2134 506 Loop Detected 35, 40 2136 U 2137 UNBIND method 25 2138 Marshalling 25 2139 Postconditions 26 2140 Preconditions 26 2141 URI Mapping 6 2143 Authors' Addresses 2145 Geoffrey Clemm 2146 IBM 2147 20 Maguire Road 2148 Lexington, MA 02421 2150 Email: geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com 2152 Jason Crawford 2153 IBM Research 2154 P.O. Box 704 2155 Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 2157 Email: ccjason@us.ibm.com 2159 Julian F. Reschke (editor) 2160 greenbytes GmbH 2161 Hafenweg 16 2162 Muenster, NW 48155 2163 Germany 2165 Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de 2167 Jim Whitehead 2168 UC Santa Cruz, Dept. of Computer Science 2169 1156 High Street 2170 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 2172 Email: ejw@cse.ucsc.edu