Network Working Group G. Clemm
Internet-Draft IBM
Updates: 4918 (if approved) J. Crawford
Intended status: Experimental IBM Research
Expires: November 30, 2009 J. Reschke, Ed.
greenbytes
J. Whitehead
U.C. Santa Cruz
May 29, 2009
Binding Extensions to Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)
draft-ietf-webdav-bind-24
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
This specification defines bindings, and the BIND method for creating
multiple bindings to the same resource. Creating a new binding to a
resource causes at least one new URI to be mapped to that resource.
Servers are required to ensure the integrity of any bindings that
they allow to be created.
Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
Please send comments to the Distributed Authoring and Versioning
(WebDAV) working group at <mailto:w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, which may be
joined by sending a message with subject "subscribe" to
<mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org>. Discussions of the WEBDAV
working group are archived at
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/>.
<http://www.webdav.org/bind/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-issues.html> lists
all registered issues since draft 02.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2. Method Preconditions and Postconditions . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Overview of Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1. Bindings to Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.1. Bind Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2. URI Mappings Created by a new Binding . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3. COPY and Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.1. Example: COPY with 'Depth: infinity' in Presence
of Bind Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.2. Example: COPY updating multiple Bindings . . . . . . . 14
2.3.3. Example: COPY with 'Depth: infinity' with Multiple
Bindings to a Leaf Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4. DELETE and Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5. MOVE and Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5.1. Example: Simple MOVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.5.2. Example: MOVE Request causing a Bind Loop . . . . . . 17
2.6. PROPFIND and Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.7. Determining Whether Two Bindings Are to the Same
Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.8. Discovering the Bindings to a Resource . . . . . . . . . . 20
3. Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.1. DAV:resource-id Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2. DAV:parent-set Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.1. Example for DAV:parent-set Property . . . . . . . . . 21
4. BIND Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1. Example: BIND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5. UNBIND Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1. Example: UNBIND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. REBIND Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1. Example: REBIND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.2. Example: REBIND in Presence of Locks and Bind Loops . . . 30
7. Additional Status Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.1. 208 Already Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
7.1.1. Example: PROPFIND by Bind-Aware Client . . . . . . . . 33
7.1.2. Example: PROPFIND by Non-Bind-Aware Client . . . . . . 35
7.2. 506 Loop Detected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8. Capability Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.1. OPTIONS Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8.2. 'DAV' Request Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
9. Relationship to WebDAV Access Control Protocol . . . . . . . . 36
10. Relationship to Versioning Extensions to WebDAV . . . . . . . 36
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
11.1. Privacy Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
11.2. Bind Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
11.3. Bindings, and Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
11.4. Private Locations May Be Revealed . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
11.5. DAV:parent-set and Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . 39
12. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Appendix A. Clarification to RFC2518bis' Usage of the term
'lock root' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Appendix B. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B.1. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B.2. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B.3. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B.4. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B.5. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B.6. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
B.7. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
B.8. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
B.9. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
B.10. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
B.11. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
B.12. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
B.13. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
B.14. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
B.15. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
B.16. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
B.17. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
B.18. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
B.19. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
B.20. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
B.21. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
B.22. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix C. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor
before publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
C.1. edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
C.2. def-integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
C.3. ex-copy-multiple-update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
C.4. ex-copy-graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
C.5. ex-live-property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
C.6. clarify-alternate-uri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
1. Introduction
This specification extends the WebDAV Distributed Authoring Protocol
([RFC4918]) to enable clients to create new access paths to existing
resources. This capability is useful for several reasons:
URIs of WebDAV-compliant resources are hierarchical and correspond to
a hierarchy of collections in resource space. The WebDAV Distributed
Authoring Protocol makes it possible to organize these resources into
hierarchies, placing them into groupings, known as collections, which
are more easily browsed and manipulated than a single flat
collection. However, hierarchies require categorization decisions
that locate resources at a single location in the hierarchy, a
drawback when a resource has multiple valid categories. For example,
in a hierarchy of vehicle descriptions containing collections for
cars and boats, a description of a combination car/boat vehicle could
belong in either collection. Ideally, the description should be
accessible from both. Allowing clients to create new URIs that
access the existing resource lets them put that resource into
multiple collections.
Hierarchies also make resource sharing more difficult, since
resources that have utility across many collections are still forced
into a single collection. For example, the mathematics department at
one university might create a collection of information on fractals
that contains bindings to some local resources, but also provides
access to some resources at other universities. For many reasons, it
may be undesirable to make physical copies of the shared resources on
the local server: to conserve disk space, to respect copyright
constraints, or to make any changes in the shared resources visible
automatically. Being able to create new access paths to existing
resources in other collections or even on other servers is useful for
this sort of case.
The BIND method defined here provides a mechanism for allowing
clients to create alternative access paths to existing WebDAV
resources. HTTP [RFC2616] and WebDAV [RFC4918] methods are able to
work because there are mappings between URIs and resources. A method
is addressed to a URI, and the server follows the mapping from that
URI to a resource, applying the method to that resource. Multiple
URIs may be mapped to the same resource, but until now there has been
no way for clients to create additional URIs mapped to existing
resources.
BIND lets clients associate a new URI with an existing WebDAV
resource, and this URI can then be used to submit requests to the
resource. Since URIs of WebDAV resources are hierarchical, and
correspond to a hierarchy of collections in resource space, the BIND
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
method also has the effect of adding the resource to a collection.
As new URIs are associated with the resource, it appears in
additional collections.
A BIND request does not create a new resource, but simply makes
available a new URI for submitting requests to an existing resource.
The new URI is indistinguishable from any other URI when submitting a
request to a resource. Only one round trip is needed to submit a
request to the intended target. Servers are required to enforce the
integrity of the relationships between the new URIs and the resources
associated with them. Consequently, it may be very costly for
servers to support BIND requests that cross server boundaries.
This specification is organized as follows. Section 1.1 defines
terminology used in the rest of the specification, while Section 2
overviews bindings. Section 3 defines the new properties needed to
support multiple bindings to the same resource. Section 4 specifies
the BIND method, used to create multiple bindings to the same
resource. Section 5 specifies the UNBIND method, used to remove a
binding to a resource. Section 6 specifies the REBIND method, used
to move a binding to another collection.
1.1. Terminology
The terminology used here follows and extends that in the WebDAV
Distributed Authoring Protocol specification [RFC4918].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This document uses XML DTD fragments ([XML]) as a notational
convention, using the rules defined in Section 17 of [RFC4918].
URI Mapping
A relation between an absolute URI and a resource. For an
absolute URI U and the resource it identifies R, the URI mapping
can be thought of as (U => R). Since a resource can represent
items that are not network retrievable, as well as those that are,
it is possible for a resource to have zero, one, or many URI
mappings. Mapping a resource to an "http" scheme URI makes it
possible to submit HTTP protocol requests to the resource using
the URI.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
Path Segment
Informally, the characters found between slashes ("/") in a URI.
Formally, as defined in Section 3.3 of [RFC3986].
Binding
A relation between a single path segment (in a collection) and a
resource. A binding is part of the state of a collection. If two
different collections contain a binding between the same path
segment and the same resource, these are two distinct bindings.
So for a collection C, a path segment S, and a resource R, the
binding can be thought of as C:(S -> R). Bindings create URI
mappings, and hence allow requests to be sent to a single resource
from multiple locations in a URI namespace. For example, given a
collection C (accessible through the URI
http://www.example.com/CollX), a path segment S (equal to
"foo.html"), and a resource R, then creating the binding C: (S ->
R) makes it possible to use the URI
http://www.example.com/CollX/foo.html to access R.
Collection
A resource that contains, as part of its state, a set of bindings
that identify internal member resources.
Internal Member URI
The URI that identifies an internal member of a collection, and
that consists of the URI for the collection, followed by a slash
character ('/'), followed by the path segment of the binding for
that internal member.
Binding Integrity
The property of a binding that says that:
* the binding continues to exist, and
* the identity of the resource identified by that binding does
not change
unless an explicit request is executed that is defined to delete
that binding (examples of requests that delete a binding are
DELETE, MOVE, and - defined later on - UNBIND, and REBIND).
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
1.2. Method Preconditions and Postconditions
See Section 16 of [RFC4918] for the definitions of "precondition" and
"postcondition".
2. Overview of Bindings
Bindings are part of the state of a collection. They define the
internal members of the collection, and the names of those internal
members.
Bindings are added and removed by a variety of existing HTTP methods.
A method that creates a new resource, such as PUT, COPY, and MKCOL,
adds a binding. A method that deletes a resource, such as DELETE,
removes a binding. A method that moves a resource (e.g. MOVE) both
adds a binding (in the destination collection) and removes a binding
(in the source collection). The BIND method introduced here provides
a mechanism for adding a second binding to an existing resource.
There is no difference between an initial binding added by PUT, COPY,
or MKCOL, and additional bindings added with BIND.
It would be very undesirable if one binding could be destroyed as a
side effect of operating on the resource through a different binding.
In particular, the removal of one binding to a resource (e.g. with a
DELETE or a MOVE) MUST NOT disrupt another binding to that resource,
e.g. by turning that binding into a dangling path segment. The
server MUST NOT reclaim system resources after removing one binding,
while other bindings to the resource remain. In other words, the
server MUST maintain the integrity of a binding. It is permissible,
however, for future method definitions (e.g., a DESTROY method) to
have semantics that explicitly remove all bindings and/or immediately
reclaim system resources.
2.1. Bindings to Collections
Creating a new binding to a collection makes each resource associated
with a binding in that collection accessible via a new URI, and thus
creates new URI mappings to those resources but no new bindings.
For example, suppose a new binding CollY is created for collection C1
in the figure below. It immediately becomes possible to access
resource R1 using the URI /CollY/x.gif and to access resource R2
using the URI /CollY/y.jpg, but no new bindings for these child
resources were created. This is because bindings are part of the
state of a collection, and associate a URI that is relative to that
collection with its target resource. No change to the bindings in
Collection C1 is needed to make its children accessible using /CollY/
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
x.gif and /CollY/y.jpg.
+-------------------------+
| Root Collection |
| bindings: |
| CollX CollY |
+-------------------------+
| /
| /
| /
+------------------+
| Collection C1 |
| bindings: |
| x.gif y.jpg |
+------------------+
| \
| \
| \
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Resource R1 | | Resource R2 |
+-------------+ +-------------+
2.1.1. Bind Loops
Bindings to collections can result in loops ("cycles"), which servers
MUST detect when processing "Depth: infinity" requests. It is
sometimes possible to complete an operation in spite of the presence
of a loop. For instance, a PROPFIND can still succeed if the server
uses the new status code 208 (Already Reported) defined in
Section 7.1.
However, the 506 (Loop Detected) status code is defined in
Section 7.2 for use in contexts where an operation is terminated
because a loop was encountered.
Support for loops is OPTIONAL: servers MAY reject requests that would
lead to the creation of a bind loop (see DAV:cycle-allowed
precondition defined in Section 4).
2.2. URI Mappings Created by a new Binding
Suppose a binding from "Binding-Name" to resource R is to be added to
a collection, C. Then if C-MAP is the set of URIs that were mapped to
C before the BIND request, then for each URI "C-URI" in C-MAP, the
URI "C-URI/Binding-Name" is mapped to resource R following the BIND
request.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
For example, if a binding from "foo.html" to R is added to a
collection C, and if the following URIs are mapped to C:
http://www.example.com/A/1/
http://example.com/A/one/
then the following new mappings to R are introduced:
http://www.example.com/A/1/foo.html
http://example.com/A/one/foo.html
Note that if R is a collection, additional URI mappings are created
to the descendents of R. Also, note that if a binding is made in
collection C to C itself (or to a parent of C), an infinite number of
mappings are introduced.
For example, if a binding from "myself" to C is then added to C, the
following infinite number of additional mappings to C are introduced:
http://www.example.com/A/1/myself
http://www.example.com/A/1/myself/myself
...
and the following infinite number of additional mappings to R are
introduced:
http://www.example.com/A/1/myself/foo.html
http://www.example.com/A/1/myself/myself/foo.html
...
2.3. COPY and Bindings
As defined in Section 9.8 of [RFC4918], COPY causes the resource
identified by the Request-URI to be duplicated, and makes the new
resource accessible using the URI specified in the Destination
header. Upon successful completion of a COPY, a new binding is
created between the last path segment of the Destination header, and
the destination resource. The new binding is added to its parent
collection, identified by the Destination header minus its final
segment.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
The following figure shows an example: Suppose that a COPY is issued
to URI-3 for resource R (which is also mapped to URI-1 and URI-2),
with the Destination header set to URI-X. After successful
completion of the COPY operation, resource R is duplicated to create
resource R', and a new binding has been created which creates at
least the URI mapping between URI-X and the new resource (although
other URI mappings may also have been created).
URI-1 URI-2 URI-3 URI-X
| | | |
| | | <---- URI Mappings ----> |
| | | |
+---------------------+ +------------------------+
| Resource R | | Resource R' |
+---------------------+ +------------------------+
It might be thought that a COPY request with "Depth: 0" on a
collection would duplicate its bindings, since bindings are part of
the collection's state. This is not the case, however. The
definition of Depth in [RFC4918] makes it clear that a "Depth: 0"
request does not apply to a collection's members. Consequently, a
COPY with "Depth: 0" does not duplicate the bindings contained by the
collection.
If a COPY request causes an existing resource to be updated, the
bindings to that resource MUST be unaffected by the COPY request.
Using the preceding example, suppose that a COPY request is issued to
URI-X for resource R', with the Destination header set to URI-2. The
content and dead properties of resource R would be updated to be a
copy of those of resource R', but the mappings from URI-1, URI-2, and
URI-3 to resource R remain unaffected. If because of multiple
bindings to a resource, more than one source resource updates a
single destination resource, the order of the updates is server
defined (see Section 2.3.2 for an example).
If a COPY request would cause a new resource to be created as a copy
of an existing resource, and that COPY request has already created a
copy of that existing resource, the COPY request instead creates
another binding to the previous copy, instead of creating a new
resource (see Section 2.3.3 for an example).
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
2.3.1. Example: COPY with 'Depth: infinity' in Presence of Bind Loops
As an example of how COPY with Depth infinity would work in the
presence of bindings, consider the following collection:
+------------------+
| Root Collection |
| bindings: |
| CollX |
+------------------+
|
|
+-------------------------------+
| Collection C1 |<-------+
| bindings: | |
| x.gif CollY | |
+-------------------------------+ |
| \ (creates loop) |
| \ |
+-------------+ +------------------+ |
| Resource R1 | | Collection C2 | |
+-------------+ | bindings: | |
| y.gif CollZ | |
+------------------+ |
| | |
| +--------+
|
+-------------+
| Resource R2 |
+-------------+
If a COPY with Depth infinity is submitted to /CollX, with
destination of /CollA, the outcome of the copy operation is:
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
+------------------+
| Root Collection |
| bindings: |
| CollX CollA |
+------------------+
| |
| +---------------------------+
| |
+-------------------+ |
| Collection C1 |<------------------+ |
| bindings: | | |
| x.gif CollY | | |
+-------------------+ | |
| \ (creates loop) | |
| \ | |
+-------------+ +-----------------+ | |
| Resource R1 | | Collection C2 | | |
+-------------+ | bindings: | | |
| y.gif CollZ | | |
+-----------------+ | |
| | | |
| +-------+ |
| |
+-------------+ |
| Resource R2 | |
+-------------+ |
|
+-------------------------------+
|
+-------------------+
| Collection C3 |<------------------+
| bindings: | |
| x.gif CollY | |
+-------------------+ |
| \ (creates loop) |
| \ |
+-------------+ +-----------------+ |
| Resource R3 | | Collection C4 | |
+-------------+ | bindings: | |
| y.gif CollZ | |
+-----------------+ |
| | |
| +-------+
|
+-------------+
| Resource R4 |
+-------------+
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
2.3.2. Example: COPY updating multiple Bindings
Given the following collection hierarchy:
+------------------+
| Root Collection |
| bindings: |
| CollX CollY |
+------------------+
/ \
/ \
/ \
+--------------------------+ +-----------------+
| Collection C1 | | Collection C2 |
| bindings: | | bindings: |
| x.gif y.gif | | x.gif y.gif |
+--------------------------+ +-----------------+
| | | |
| | | |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
| Resource R1 | | Resource R2 | | Resource R3 |
+-------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
A COPY of /CollX with Depth infinity to /CollY will not result in a
changed hierarchy, and Resource R3 will be updated with the content
of either Resource R1 or Resource R2.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
2.3.3. Example: COPY with 'Depth: infinity' with Multiple Bindings to a
Leaf Resource
Given the following collection hierarchy:
+------------------+
| Root Collection |
| bindings: |
| CollX |
+------------------+
|
|
|
+----------------+
| Collection C1 |
| bindings: |
| x.gif y.gif |
+----------------+
| |
| |
+-------------+
| Resource R1 |
+-------------+
A COPY of /CollX with Depth infinity to /CollY results in the
following collection hierarchy:
+------------------+
| Root Collection |
| bindings: |
| CollX CollY |
+------------------+
| \
| \
| \
+----------------+ +-----------------+
| Collection C1 | | Collection C2 |
| bindings: | | bindings: |
| x.gif y.gif | | x.gif y.gif |
+----------------+ +-----------------+
| | | |
| | | |
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Resource R1 | | Resource R2 |
+-------------+ +-------------+
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
2.4. DELETE and Bindings
When there are multiple bindings to a resource, a DELETE applied to
that resource MUST NOT remove any bindings to that resource other
than the one identified by the Request-URI. For example, suppose the
collection identified by the URI "/a" has a binding named "x" to a
resource R, and another collection identified by "/b" has a binding
named "y" to the same resource R. Then a DELETE applied to "/a/x"
removes the binding named "x" from "/a" but MUST NOT remove the
binding named "y" from "/b" (i.e. after the DELETE, "/y/b" continues
to identify the resource R).
When DELETE is applied to a collection, it MUST NOT modify the
membership of any other collection that is not itself a member of the
collection being deleted. For example, if both "/a/.../x" and
"/b/.../y" identify the same collection, C, then applying DELETE to
"/a" must not delete an internal member from C or from any other
collection that is a member of C, because that would modify the
membership of "/b".
If a collection supports the UNBIND method (see Section 5), a DELETE
of an internal member of a collection MAY be implemented as an UNBIND
request. In this case, applying DELETE to a Request-URI has the
effect of removing the binding identified by the final segment of the
Request-URI from the collection identified by the Request-URI minus
its final segment. Although [RFC4918] allows a DELETE to be a non-
atomic operation, when the DELETE operation is implemented as an
UNBIND, the operation is atomic. In particular, a DELETE on a
hierarchy of resources is simply the removal of a binding to the
collection identified by the Request-URI.
2.5. MOVE and Bindings
When MOVE is applied to a resource, the other bindings to that
resource MUST be unaffected, and if the resource being moved is a
collection, the bindings to any members of that collection MUST be
unaffected. Also, if MOVE is used with Overwrite:T to delete an
existing resource, the constraints specified for DELETE apply.
If the destination collection of a MOVE request supports the REBIND
method (see Section 6), a MOVE of a resource into that collection MAY
be implemented as a REBIND request. Although [RFC4918] allows a MOVE
to be a non-atomic operation, when the MOVE operation is implemented
as a REBIND, the operation is atomic. In particular, applying a MOVE
to a Request-URI and a Destination URI has the effect of removing a
binding to a resource (at the Request-URI), and creating a new
binding to that resource (at the Destination URI). Even when the
Request-URI identifies a collection, the MOVE operation involves only
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
removing one binding to that collection and adding another.
2.5.1. Example: Simple MOVE
As an example, suppose that a MOVE is issued to URI-3 for resource R
below (which is also mapped to URI-1 and URI-2), with the Destination
header set to URI-X. After successful completion of the MOVE
operation, a new binding has been created which creates the URI
mapping between URI-X and resource R. The binding corresponding to
the final segment of URI-3 has been removed, which also causes the
URI mapping between URI-3 and R to be removed. If resource R were a
collection, old URI-3 based mappings to members of R would have been
removed, and new URI-X based mappings to members of R would have been
created.
>> Before Request:
URI-1 URI-2 URI-3
| | |
| | | <---- URI Mappings
| | |
+---------------------+
| Resource R |
+---------------------+
>> After Request:
URI-1 URI-2 URI-X
| | |
| | | <---- URI Mappings
| | |
+---------------------+
| Resource R |
+---------------------+
2.5.2. Example: MOVE Request causing a Bind Loop
Note that in the presence of collection bindings, a MOVE request can
cause the creating of a bind loop.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
Consider a the top level collections C1 and C2 with URIs "/CollW/"
and "/CollX/". C1 also contains an additional binding named "CollY"
to C2:
+------------------+
| Root Collection |
| bindings: |
| CollW CollX |
+------------------+
| |
| |
+------------------+ |
| Collection C1 | |
| bindings: | |
| CollY | |
+------------------+ |
| |
| |
+------------------+
| Collection C2 |
| |
| |
+------------------+
In this case, the MOVE request below would cause a bind loop:
>> Request:
MOVE /CollW HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Destination: /CollX/CollZ
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
If the request succeeded, the resulting state would be:
+------------------+
| Root Collection |
| bindings: |
| CollX |
+------------------+
|
|
+------------------+ |
| Collection C1 | |
+----> | bindings: | |
| | CollY | |
| +------------------+ |
| | |
| | |
| +------------------+
| | Collection C2 |
| | bindings: |
| | CollZ |
| +------------------+
| |
| |
+-------------------+
2.6. PROPFIND and Bindings
Consistent with [RFC4918], the value of a dead property MUST be
independent of the number of bindings to its host resource or of the
path submitted to PROPFIND. On the other hand, the behaviour for
each live property depends on its individual definition (for example,
see [RFC3744], Section 5, paragraph 2 for a case where the value is
independent of path and bindings, and [RFC4918], Section 8.8 for a
discussion about the live properties DAV:getetag and DAV:
getlastmodified, which may behave differently).
2.7. Determining Whether Two Bindings Are to the Same Resource
It is useful to have some way of determining whether two bindings are
to the same resource. Two resources might have identical contents
and properties, but not be the same resource (e.g. an update to one
resource does not affect the other resource).
The REQUIRED DAV:resource-id property defined in Section 3.1 is a
resource identifier, which MUST be unique across all resources for
all time. If the values of DAV:resource-id returned by PROPFIND
requests through two bindings are identical character by character,
the client can be assured that the two bindings are to the same
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
resource.
The DAV:resource-id property is created, and its value assigned, when
the resource is created. The value of DAV:resource-id MUST NOT be
changed. Even after the resource is no longer accessible through any
URI, that value MUST NOT be reassigned to another resource's DAV:
resource-id property.
Any method that creates a new resource MUST assign a new, unique
value to its DAV:resource-id property. For example, a PUT applied to
a null resource, COPY (when not overwriting an existing target) and
CHECKIN (see [RFC3253], Section 4.4) must assign a new, unique value
to the DAV:resource-id property of the new resource they create.
On the other hand, any method that affects an existing resource must
not change the value of its DAV:resource-id property. Specifically,
a PUT or a COPY that updates an existing resource must not change the
value of its DAV:resource-id property. A REBIND, since it does not
create a new resource, but only changes the location of an existing
resource, must not change the value of the DAV:resource-id property.
2.8. Discovering the Bindings to a Resource
An OPTIONAL DAV:parent-set property on a resource provides a list of
the bindings that associate a collection and a URI segment with that
resource. If the DAV:parent-set property exists on a given resource,
it MUST contain a complete list of all bindings to that resource that
the client is authorized to see. When deciding whether to support
the DAV:parent-set property, server implementers / administrators
should balance the benefits it provides against the cost of
maintaining the property and the security risks enumerated in
Sections 11.4 and 11.5.
3. Properties
The bind feature introduces the properties defined below.
A DAV:allprop PROPFIND request SHOULD NOT return any of the
properties defined by this document. This allows a binding server to
perform efficiently when a naive client, which does not understand
the cost of asking a server to compute all possible live properties,
issues a DAV:allprop PROPFIND request.
3.1. DAV:resource-id Property
The DAV:resource-id property is a REQUIRED property that enables
clients to determine whether two bindings are to the same resource.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
The value of DAV:resource-id is a URI, and may use any registered URI
scheme that guarantees the uniqueness of the value across all
resources for all time (e.g. the urn:uuid: URN namespace defined in
[RFC4122] or the opaquelocktoken: URI scheme defined in [RFC4918]).
<!ELEMENT resource-id (href)>
3.2. DAV:parent-set Property
The DAV:parent-set property is an OPTIONAL property that enables
clients to discover what collections contain a binding to this
resource (i.e. what collections have that resource as an internal
member). It contains an href/segment pair for each collection that
has a binding to the resource. The href identifies the collection,
and the segment identifies the binding name of that resource in that
collection.
A given collection MUST appear only once in the DAV:parent-set for
any given binding, even if there are multiple URI mappings to that
collection.
<!ELEMENT parent-set (parent)*>
<!ELEMENT parent (href, segment)>
<!ELEMENT segment (#PCDATA)>
<!-- PCDATA value: segment, as defined in Section 3.3 of
[RFC3986] -->
3.2.1. Example for DAV:parent-set Property
For example, if collection C1 is mapped to both /CollX and /CollY,
and C1 contains a binding named "x.gif" to a resource R1, then either
[/CollX, x.gif] or [/CollY, x.gif] can appear in the DAV:parent-set
of R1, but not both. But if C1 also had a binding named "y.gif" to
R1, then there would be two entries for C1 in the DAV:parent-set of
R1 (i.e. both [/CollX, x.gif] and [/CollX, y.gif] or, alternatively,
both [/CollY, x.gif] and [/CollY, y.gif]).
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
+-------------------------+
| Root Collection |
| bindings: |
| CollX CollY |
+-------------------------+
| /
| /
| /
+-----------------+
| Collection C1 |
| bindings: |
| x.gif y.gif |
+-----------------+
| |
| |
| |
+-------------+
| Resource R1 |
+-------------+
In this case, one possible value for DAV:parent-set property on
"/CollX/x.gif" would be:
<parent-set xmlns="DAV:">
<parent>
<href>/CollX</href>
<segment>x.gif</segment>
</parent>
<parent>
<href>/CollX</href>
<segment>y.gif</segment>
</parent>
</parent-set>
4. BIND Method
The BIND method modifies the collection identified by the Request-
URI, by adding a new binding from the segment specified in the BIND
body to the resource identified in the BIND body.
If a server cannot guarantee the integrity of the binding, the BIND
request MUST fail. Note that it is especially difficult to maintain
the integrity of cross-server bindings. Unless the server where the
resource resides knows about all bindings on all servers to that
resource, it may unwittingly destroy the resource or make it
inaccessible without notifying another server that manages a binding
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
to the resource. For example, if server A permits creation of a
binding to a resource on server B, server A must notify server B
about its binding and must have an agreement with B that B will not
destroy the resource while A's binding exists. Otherwise server B
may receive a DELETE request that it thinks removes the last binding
to the resource and destroy the resource while A's binding still
exists. The precondition DAV:cross-server-binding is defined below
for cases where servers fail cross-server BIND requests because they
cannot guarantee the integrity of cross-server bindings.
By default, if there already is a binding for the specified segment
in the collection, the new binding replaces the existing binding.
This default binding replacement behavior can be overridden using the
Overwrite header defined in Section 10.6 of [RFC4918].
If a BIND request fails, the server state preceding the request MUST
be restored. This method is unsafe and idempotent (see [RFC2616],
Section 9.1).
Marshalling:
The request MAY include an Overwrite header.
The request body MUST be a DAV:bind XML element.
<!ELEMENT bind (segment, href)>
If the request succeeds, the server MUST return 201 (Created) when
a new binding was created and 200 (OK) or 204 (No Content) when an
existing binding was replaced.
If a response body for a successful request is included, it MUST
be a DAV:bind-response XML element. Note that this document does
not define any elements for the BIND response body, but the DAV:
bind-response element is defined to ensure interoperability
between future extensions that do define elements for the BIND
response body.
<!ELEMENT bind-response ANY>
Preconditions:
(DAV:bind-into-collection): The Request-URI MUST identify a
collection.
(DAV:bind-source-exists): The DAV:href element MUST identify a
resource.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
(DAV:binding-allowed): The resource identified by the DAV:href
supports multiple bindings to it.
(DAV:cross-server-binding): If the resource identified by the DAV:
href element in the request body is on another server from the
collection identified by the Request-URI, the server MUST support
cross-server bindings (servers that do not support cross-server
bindings can use this condition code to signal the client exactly
why the request failed).
(DAV:name-allowed): The name specified by the DAV:segment is
available for use as a new binding name.
(DAV:can-overwrite): If the collection already contains a binding
with the specified path segment, and if an Overwrite header is
included, the value of the Overwrite header MUST be "T".
(DAV:cycle-allowed): If the DAV:href element identifies a
collection, and if the Request-URI identifies a collection that is
a member of that collection, the server MUST support cycles in the
URI namespace (servers that do not support cycles can use this
condition code to signal the client exactly why the request
failed).
(DAV:locked-update-allowed): If the collection identified by the
Request-URI is write-locked, then the appropriate token MUST be
specified in an If request header.
(DAV:locked-overwrite-allowed): If the collection already contains
a binding with the specified path segment, and if that binding is
protected by a write-lock, then the appropriate token MUST be
specified in an If request header.
Postconditions:
(DAV:new-binding): The collection MUST have a binding that maps
the segment specified in the DAV:segment element in the request
body, to the resource identified by the DAV:href element in the
request body.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
4.1. Example: BIND
>> Request:
BIND /CollY HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com
Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8"
Content-Length: 172
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<D:bind xmlns:D="DAV:">
<D:segment>bar.html</D:segment>
<D:href>http://www.example.com/CollX/foo.html</D:href>
</D:bind>
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Location: http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html
The server added a new binding to the collection,
"http://www.example.com/CollY", associating "bar.html" with the
resource identified by the URI
"http://www.example.com/CollX/foo.html". Clients can now use the URI
"http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html" to submit requests to that
resource.
5. UNBIND Method
The UNBIND method modifies the collection identified by the Request-
URI, by removing the binding identified by the segment specified in
the UNBIND body.
Once a resource is unreachable by any URI mapping, the server MAY
reclaim system resources associated with that resource. If UNBIND
removes a binding to a resource, but there remain URI mappings to
that resource, the server MUST NOT reclaim system resources
associated with the resource.
If an UNBIND request fails, the server state preceding the request
MUST be restored. This method is unsafe and idempotent (see
[RFC2616], Section 9.1).
Marshalling:
The request body MUST be a DAV:unbind XML element.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
<!ELEMENT unbind (segment)>
If the request succeeds, the server MUST return 200 (OK) or 204
(No Content) when the binding was successfully deleted.
If a response body for a successful request is included, it MUST
be a DAV:unbind-response XML element. Note that this document
does not define any elements for the UNBIND response body, but the
DAV:unbind-response element is defined to ensure interoperability
between future extensions that do define elements for the UNBIND
response body.
<!ELEMENT unbind-response ANY>
Preconditions:
(DAV:unbind-from-collection): The Request-URI MUST identify a
collection.
(DAV:unbind-source-exists): The DAV:segment element MUST identify
a binding in the collection identified by the Request-URI.
(DAV:locked-update-allowed): If the collection identified by the
Request-URI is write-locked, then the appropriate token MUST be
specified in the request.
(DAV:protected-url-deletion-allowed): If the binding identified by
the segment is protected by a write-lock, then the appropriate
token MUST be specified in the request.
Postconditions:
(DAV:binding-deleted): The collection MUST NOT have a binding for
the segment specified in the DAV:segment element in the request
body.
(DAV:lock-deleted): If the internal member URI of the binding
specified by the Request-URI and the DAV:segment element in the
request body was protected by a write-lock at the time of the
request, that write-lock must have been deleted by the request.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
5.1. Example: UNBIND
>> Request:
UNBIND /CollX HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com
Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8"
Content-Length: 117
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<D:unbind xmlns:D="DAV:">
<D:segment>foo.html</D:segment>
</D:unbind>
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
The server removed the binding named "foo.html" from the collection,
"http://www.example.com/CollX". A request to the resource named
"http://www.example.com/CollX/foo.html" will return a 404 (Not Found)
response.
6. REBIND Method
The REBIND method removes a binding to a resource from a collection,
and adds a binding to that resource into the collection identified by
the Request-URI. The request body specifies the binding to be added
(segment) and the old binding to be removed (href). It is
effectively an atomic form of a MOVE request, and MUST be treated the
same way as MOVE for the purpose of determining access permissions.
If a REBIND request fails, the server state preceding the request
MUST be restored. This method is unsafe and idempotent (see
[RFC2616], Section 9.1).
Marshalling:
The request MAY include an Overwrite header.
The request body MUST be a DAV:rebind XML element.
<!ELEMENT rebind (segment, href)>
If the request succeeds, the server MUST return 201 (Created) when
a new binding was created and 200 (OK) or 204 (No Content) when an
existing binding was replaced.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
If a response body for a successful request is included, it MUST
be a DAV:rebind-response XML element. Note that this document
does not define any elements for the REBIND response body, but the
DAV:rebind-response element is defined to ensure interoperability
between future extensions that do define elements for the REBIND
response body.
<!ELEMENT rebind-response ANY>
Preconditions:
(DAV:rebind-into-collection): The Request-URI MUST identify a
collection.
(DAV:rebind-source-exists): The DAV:href element MUST identify a
resource.
(DAV:cross-server-binding): If the resource identified by the DAV:
href element in the request body is on another server from the
collection identified by the Request-URI, the server MUST support
cross-server bindings (servers that do not support cross-server
bindings can use this condition code to signal the client exactly
why the request failed).
(DAV:name-allowed): The name specified by the DAV:segment is
available for use as a new binding name.
(DAV:can-overwrite): If the collection already contains a binding
with the specified path segment, and if an Overwrite header is
included, the value of the Overwrite header MUST be "T".
(DAV:cycle-allowed): If the DAV:href element identifies a
collection, and if the Request-URI identifies a collection that is
a member of that collection, the server MUST support cycles in the
URI namespace (servers that do not support cycles can use this
condition code to signal the client exactly why the request
failed).
(DAV:locked-update-allowed): If the collection identified by the
Request-URI is write-locked, then the appropriate token MUST be
specified in the request.
(DAV:protected-url-modification-allowed): If the collection
identified by the Request-URI already contains a binding with the
specified path segment, and if that binding is protected by a
write-lock, then the appropriate token MUST be specified in the
request.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
(DAV:locked-source-collection-update-allowed): If the collection
identified by the parent collection prefix of the DAV:href URI is
write-locked, then the appropriate token MUST be specified in the
request.
(DAV:protected-source-url-deletion-allowed): If the DAV:href URI
is protected by a write lock, then the appropriate token MUST be
specified in the request.
Postconditions:
(DAV:new-binding): The collection MUST have a binding that maps
the segment specified in the DAV:segment element in the request
body, to the resource that was identified by the DAV:href element
in the request body.
(DAV:binding-deleted): The URL specified in the DAV:href element
in the request body MUST NOT be mapped to a resource.
(DAV:lock-deleted): If the URL specified in the DAV:href element
in the request body was protected by a write-lock at the time of
the request, that write-lock must have been deleted by the
request.
6.1. Example: REBIND
>> Request:
REBIND /CollX HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com
Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8"
Content-Length: 176
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<D:rebind xmlns:D="DAV:">
<D:segment>foo.html</D:segment>
<D:href>http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html</D:href>
</D:rebind>
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
The server added a new binding to the collection,
"http://www.example.com/CollX", associating "foo.html" with the
resource identified by the URI
"http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html", and removes the binding
named "bar.html" from the collection identified by the URI
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
"http://www.example.com/CollY". Clients can now use the URI
"http://www.example.com/CollX/foo.html" to submit requests to that
resource, and requests on the URI
"http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html" will fail with a 404 (Not
Found) response.
6.2. Example: REBIND in Presence of Locks and Bind Loops
To illustrate the effects of locks and bind loops on a REBIND
operation, consider the following collection:
+------------------+
| Root Collection |
| bindings: |
| CollW |
+------------------+
|
|
|
+-------------------------------+
| Collection C1 |<--------+
| LOCKED infinity | |
| (lock token L1) | |
| bindings: | |
| CollX CollY | |
+-------------------------------+ |
| | |
| | (creates loop) |
| | |
+-----------------+ +------------------+ |
| Collection C2 | | Collection C3 | |
| (inherit lock) | | (inherit lock) | |
| (lock token L1) | | (lock token L1) | |
| bindings: | | bindings: | |
| {none} | | y.gif CollZ | |
+-----------------+ +------------------+ |
| | |
| +-----+
|
+---------------------------+
| Resource R2 |
| (lock inherited from C1) |
| (lock token L1) |
+---------------------------+
(where L1 is "urn:uuid:f92d4fae-7012-11ab-a765-00c0ca1f6bf9").
Note that the binding between CollZ and C1 creates a loop in the
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
containment hierarchy. Servers are not required to support such
loops, though the server in this example does.
The REBIND request below will remove the segment "CollZ" from C3 and
add a new binding from "CollA" to the collection C2.
REBIND /CollW/CollX HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com
If: (<urn:uuid:f92d4fae-7012-11ab-a765-00c0ca1f6bf9>)
Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8"
Content-Length: 152
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<D:rebind xmlns:D="DAV:">
<D:segment>CollA</D:segment>
<D:href>/CollW/CollY/CollZ</D:href>
</D:rebind>
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
The outcome of the REBIND operation is:
+------------------+
| Root Collection |
| bindings: |
| CollW |
+------------------+
|
|
|
+-------------------------------+
| Collection C1 |
| LOCKED infinity |
| (lock token L1) |
| bindings: |
| CollX CollY |
+-------------------------------+
| ^ |
| | |
+-----------------+ | +------------------+
| Collection C2 | | | Collection C3 |
|(inherited lock) | | | (inherited lock) |
|(lock token L1) | | | (lock token L1) |
| bindings: | | | bindings: |
| CollA | | | y.gif |
+-----------------+ | +------------------+
| | |
+---------------+ |
(creates loop) |
+---------------------------+
| Resource R2 |
| (inherited lock from C1) |
| (lock token L1) |
+---------------------------+
7. Additional Status Codes
7.1. 208 Already Reported
The 208 (Already Reported) status code can be used inside a DAV:
propstat response element to avoid enumerating the internal members
of multiple bindings to the same collection repeatedly. For each
binding to a collection inside the request's scope, only one will be
reported with a 200 status, while subsequent DAV:response elements
for all other bindings will use the 208 status, and no DAV:response
elements for their descendants are included.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
Note that the 208 status will only occur for "Depth: infinity"
requests, and that it is of particular importance when the multiple
collection bindings cause a bind loop as discussed in Section 2.2.
A client can request the DAV:resource-id property in a PROPFIND
request to guarantee that they can accurately reconstruct the binding
structure of a collection with multiple bindings to a single
resource.
For backward compatibility with clients not aware of the 208 status
code appearing in multistatus response bodies, it SHOULD NOT be used
unless the client has signalled support for this specification using
the "DAV" request header (see Section 8.2). Instead, a 506 status
should be returned when a binding loop is discovered. This allows
the server to return the 506 as the top level return status, if it
discovers it before it started the response, or in the middle of a
multistatus, if it discovers it in the middle of streaming out a
multistatus response.
7.1.1. Example: PROPFIND by Bind-Aware Client
For example, consider a PROPFIND request on /Coll (bound to
collection C), where the members of /Coll are /Coll/Foo (bound to
resource R) and /Coll/Bar (bound to collection C).
>> Request:
PROPFIND /Coll/ HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com
Depth: infinity
DAV: bind
Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8"
Content-Length: 152
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<D:propfind xmlns:D="DAV:">
<D:prop>
<D:displayname/>
<D:resource-id/>
</D:prop>
</D:propfind>
>> Response:
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
HTTP/1.1 207 Multi-Status
Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8"
Content-Length: 1241
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<D:multistatus xmlns:D="DAV:">
<D:response>
<D:href>http://www.example.com/Coll/</D:href>
<D:propstat>
<D:prop>
<D:displayname>Loop Demo</D:displayname>
<D:resource-id>
<D:href
>urn:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf8</D:href>
</D:resource-id>
</D:prop>
<D:status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</D:status>
</D:propstat>
</D:response>
<D:response>
<D:href>http://www.example.com/Coll/Foo</D:href>
<D:propstat>
<D:prop>
<D:displayname>Bird Inventory</D:displayname>
<D:resource-id>
<D:href
>urn:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf9</D:href>
</D:resource-id>
</D:prop>
<D:status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</D:status>
</D:propstat>
</D:response>
<D:response>
<D:href>http://www.example.com/Coll/Bar</D:href>
<D:propstat>
<D:prop>
<D:displayname>Loop Demo</D:displayname>
<D:resource-id>
<D:href
>urn:uuid:f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf8</D:href>
</D:resource-id>
</D:prop>
<D:status>HTTP/1.1 208 Already Reported</D:status>
</D:propstat>
</D:response>
</D:multistatus>
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
7.1.2. Example: PROPFIND by Non-Bind-Aware Client
In this example, the client isn't aware of the 208 status code
introduced by this specification. As the "Depth: infinity" PROPFIND
request would cause a loop condition, the whole request is rejected
with a 506 status.
>> Request:
PROPFIND /Coll/ HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com
Depth: infinity
Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8"
Content-Length: 125
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<D:propfind xmlns:D="DAV:">
<D:prop> <D:displayname/> </D:prop>
</D:propfind>
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 506 Loop Detected
7.2. 506 Loop Detected
The 506 (Loop Detected) status code indicates that the server
terminated an operation because it encountered an infinite loop while
processing a request with "Depth: infinity". This status indicates
that the entire operation failed.
8. Capability Discovery
8.1. OPTIONS Method
If the server supports bindings, it MUST return the compliance class
name "bind" as a field in the "DAV" response header (see [RFC4918],
Section 10.1) from an OPTIONS request on any resource implemented by
that server. A value of "bind" in the "DAV" header MUST indicate
that the server supports all MUST level requirements and REQUIRED
features specified in this document.
8.2. 'DAV' Request Header
Clients SHOULD signal support for all MUST level requirements and
REQUIRED features by submitting a "DAV" request header containing the
compliance class name "bind". In particular, the client MUST
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
understand the 208 status code defined in Section 7.1.
9. Relationship to WebDAV Access Control Protocol
BIND and REBIND behave the same as MOVE with respect to the DAV:acl
property (see [RFC3744], Section 7.3).
10. Relationship to Versioning Extensions to WebDAV
Servers that implement Workspaces ([RFC3253], Section 6) and Version
Controlled Collections ([RFC3253], Section 14) already need to
implement BIND-like behaviour in order to handle UPDATE and
UNCHECKOUT semantics.
Consider a workspace "/ws1/", containing the version-controlled,
checked-out collections C1 and C2, named "/ws1/CollX" and "/ws1/
CollY", and a version-controlled resource R, bound to C1 as "/ws1/
CollX/test":
+-------------------------+
| Workspace |
| bindings: |
| CollX CollY |
+-------------------------+
| |
| |
| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| Collection C1 | | Collection C2 |
| bindings: | | |
| test | | |
+---------------+ +---------------+
|
|
|
+------------------+
| Resource R |
+------------------+
Moving "/ws1/CollX/test" into "/ws1/CollY", checking in C2, but
undoing the checkout on C1 will undo part of the MOVE request, thus
restoring the binding from C1 to R, but keeping the new binding from
C2 to R:
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
>> Request:
MOVE /ws1/CollX/test HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com
Destination: /ws1/CollY/test
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 204 No Content
>> Request:
CHECKIN /ws1/CollY/ HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
Cache-Control: no-cache
Location: http://repo.example.com/his/17/ver/42
>> Request:
UNCHECKOUT /ws1/CollX/ HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Cache-Control: no-cache
As a result, both C1 and C2 would have a binding to R:
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
+-------------------------+
| Workspace |
| bindings: |
| CollX CollY |
+-------------------------+
| |
| |
| |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| Collection C1 | | Collection C2 |
| bindings: | | bindings: |
| test | | test |
+---------------+ +---------------+
| |
| |
| |
+------------------+
| Resource R |
+------------------+
The MOVE semantics defined in Section 3.15 of [RFC3253] already
require that "/ws1/CollX/test" and "/ws1/CollY/test" will have the
same version history (as exposed in the DAV:version-history
property). Furthermore, the UNCHECKOUT semantics (which in this case
is similar to UPDATE, see Section 14.11 of [RFC3253]) require:
...If a new version-controlled member is in a workspace that
already has a version-controlled resource for that version
history, then the new version-controlled member MUST be just a
binding (i.e., another name for) that existing version-controlled
resource...
Thus, "/ws1/CollX/test" and "/ws1/CollY/test" will be bindings to the
same resource R, and have identical DAV:resource-id properties.
11. Security Considerations
This section is provided to make WebDAV implementors aware of the
security implications of this protocol.
All of the security considerations of HTTP/1.1 and the WebDAV
Distributed Authoring Protocol specification also apply to this
protocol specification. In addition, bindings introduce several new
security concerns and increase the risk of some existing threats.
These issues are detailed below.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
11.1. Privacy Concerns
In a context where cross-server bindings are supported, creating
bindings on a trusted server may make it possible for a hostile agent
to induce users to send private information to a target on a
different server.
11.2. Bind Loops
Although bind loops were already possible in HTTP 1.1, the
introduction of the BIND method creates a new avenue for clients to
create loops accidentally or maliciously. If the binding and its
target are on the same server, the server may be able to detect BIND
requests that would create loops. Servers are required to detect
loops that are caused by bindings to collections during the
processing of any requests with "Depth: infinity".
11.3. Bindings, and Denial of Service
Denial of service attacks were already possible by posting URIs that
were intended for limited use at heavily used Web sites. The
introduction of BIND creates a new avenue for similar denial of
service attacks. If cross-server bindings are supported, clients can
now create bindings at heavily used sites to target locations that
were not designed for heavy usage.
11.4. Private Locations May Be Revealed
If the DAV:parent-set property is maintained on a resource, the
owners of the bindings risk revealing private locations. The
directory structures where bindings are located are available to
anyone who has access to the DAV:parent-set property on the resource.
Moving a binding may reveal its new location to anyone with access to
DAV:parent-set on its resource.
11.5. DAV:parent-set and Denial of Service
If the server maintains the DAV:parent-set property in response to
bindings created in other administrative domains, it is exposed to
hostile attempts to make it devote resources to adding bindings to
the list.
12. Internationalization Considerations
All internationalization considerations mentioned in [RFC4918] also
apply to this document.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
13. IANA Considerations
Section 7 defines the HTTP status codes 208 (Already Reported) and
506 (Loop Detected), to be added to the registry at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes>.
14. Acknowledgements
This document is the collaborative product of the authors and Tyson
Chihaya, Jim Davis, Chuck Fay and Judith Slein. It has benefited
from thoughtful discussion by Jim Amsden, Peter Carlson, Steve
Carter, Ken Coar, Ellis Cohen, Dan Connolly, Bruce Cragun, Cyrus
Daboo, Spencer Dawkins, Mark Day, Werner Donne, Rajiv Dulepet, David
Durand, Lisa Dusseault, Stefan Eissing, Roy Fielding, Yaron Goland,
Joe Hildebrand, Fred Hitt, Alex Hopmann, James Hunt, Marcus Jager,
Chris Kaler, Manoj Kasichainula, Rohit Khare, Brian Korver, Daniel
LaLiberte, Steve Martin, Larry Masinter, Jeff McAffer, Alexey
Melnikov, Surendra Koduru Reddy, Max Rible, Sam Ruby, Bradley
Sergeant, Nick Shelness, John Stracke, John Tigue, John Turner, Kevin
Wiggen, and other members of the WebDAV working group.
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC4918] Dusseault, L., Ed., "HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed
Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)", RFC 4918, June 2007.
[XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E., and
F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
Edition)", W3C REC-xml-20081126, November 2008,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/>.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
15.2. Informative References
[RFC3253] Clemm, G., Amsden, J., Ellison, T., Kaler, C., and J.
Whitehead, "Versioning Extensions to WebDAV (Web
Distributed Authoring and Versioning)", RFC 3253,
March 2002.
[RFC3744] Clemm, G., Reschke, J., Sedlar, E., and J. Whitehead, "Web
Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) Access
Control Protocol", RFC 3744, May 2004.
[RFC4122] Leach, P., Mealling, M., and R. Salz, "A Universally
Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122,
July 2005.
Appendix A. Clarification to RFC2518bis' Usage of the term 'lock root'
[RFC4918], Section 9.10.1 claims:
A LOCK request to an existing resource will create a lock on the
resource identified by the Request-URI, provided the resource is
not already locked with a conflicting lock. The resource
identified in the Request-URI becomes the root of the lock.
This is incorrect in that it implies that the "lock root" is a
resource, not a URL
(<http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=1207>). However,
should a directly locked resource have multiple bindings, only the
one used in the Request-URI of the LOCK request will be the protected
from changes of clients not supplying the lock token.
A correct description would be:
A LOCK request to an existing resource will create a lock on the
resource identified by the Request-URI, provided the resource is
not already locked with a conflicting lock. The Request-URI
becomes the root of the lock.
Note that this change makes the description consistent with the
definition of the DAV:lockroot XML element in Section 14.12 of
[RFC4918].
The authors of this specification recommend that future revisions of
[RFC4918] will update the description as suggested above.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
Appendix B. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
B.1. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-02
Add and resolve issues "2.3_COPY_SHARED_BINDINGS" and
"2.3_MULTIPLE_COPY". Add issue "5.1_LOOP_STATUS" and proposed
resolution, but keep it open. Add issues "ED_references" and
"4_507_status". Started work on index. Rename document to "Binding
Extensions to Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)".
Rename "References" to "Normative References". Close issue
"ED_references". Close issue "4_507_status".
B.2. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-03
Add and close issues "9.2_redirect_loops", "ED_authors" and
"ED_updates". Add section about capability discovery (DAV header).
Close issues "5.1_LOOP_STATUS". Add and resolve new issue
"5.1_506_STATUS_STREAMING". Update XML spec reference. Add issue
"locking" and resolve as invalid.
B.3. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-04
Add and close issues "6_precondition_binding_allowed" and
"6_lock_behaviour". Add mailing list and issues list pointers to
front.
B.4. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-05
Editorial fixes. Add and resolve issues "1.3_error_negotiation",
"2.5_language" and "7.1.1_add_resource_id". Add historical issue
"4_LOCK_BEHAVIOR" and it's resolution for better tracking.
B.5. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-06
Rewrite Editorial Note. Open and resolve issues "2.6_identical",
"specify_safeness_and_idempotence" and "ED_rfc2026_ref".
B.6. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07
Add more index items (no change tracking). Add and resolve issues
"2.3_copy_to_same", "bind_properties", "bind_vs_ACL",
"6_rebind_intro" and "rfc2396bis" (actually an action item). Fix XML
DTD fragment in section 3.3. Make spelling of "Request-URI"
consistent.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
B.7. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-08
Resolved editorial issues raised by Jim Whitehead in <http://
lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0129.html>.
Add and resolve issues "atomicity", "2_allow_destroy",
"2.1_separate_loop_discussion", "2.1.1_bind_loops_vs_locks",
"2.3_copy_depth_infinity", "2.3_copy_example", "2.3_copy_vs_loops",
"2.6_resource-id_vs_versions", "3.2_example" and
"6_rebind_premissions". Add issue "2.6_when_do_ids_change". Re-open
and resolve "6_rebind_intro".
B.8. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-09
Add and resolve issue "6.1_rebind_vs_locks", adding proposed example
text. Add action item "3.1_uuids". Close issue
"2.6_when_do_ids_change". Add and resolve issues
"2.6_bindings_vs_properties" and "uri_draft_ref".
B.9. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-10
Resolve action item "3.1_uuids". Add and resolve issue
"2.7_unlock_vs_bindings". Revisit issue
"2.6_bindings_vs_properties", and remove the part of the sentence
that speaks about live properties. Update "rfc2396bis" references to
"RFC3986". Add issue "9_ns_op_and_acl" and add potential resolution.
Align artwork where applicable (new xml2rfc1.29rc2 feature).
B.10. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-11
Updated [draft-mealling-uuid-urn] to [RFC4122]. Add statement about
live properties in Section 2.6.
B.11. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-12
Updated Author's address. Uppercase "Section" when referring to
other documents.
Updating from RFC2518 to RFC2518bis:
o Remove own explanation of DTD syntax.
o Remove own definition of precondition/postcondition.
o Remove reference to broken RFC2518 language about DELETE and
UNLOCK.
o Remove own definition of DAV: request header.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
o Updated "Rationale for Distinguishing Bindings from URI Mappings"
to reflect the changes in [draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis], making
proposals for more changes so that the issue can be closed (see
also <http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227>
and <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/
draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-12.html#rfc.section.5.2>).
B.12. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-13
Update [draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518-bis] to draft 14. Update one
incorrect section reference. Remove Section "Rationale for
Distinguishing Bindings from URI Mappings" as
[draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518-bis] now uses the proper definition of
collection state. Examples use application/xml instead of text/xml
MIME type.
Fix IANA section (there are no IANA considerations).
B.13. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-14
Update [draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518-bis] to draft 15. Update [XML] to
4th edition.
Markup ASCII art for box recognition (doesn't affect ASCII version).
Identify Julian Reschke as Editor.
B.14. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-15
Fix typo in RFC2119 keywords section (sorry!).
Update [draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518-bis] to draft 17.
Add and resolve issue "rfc2518bis-lock-root".
B.15. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-16
Add and resolve issue "iana-vs-http-status".
B.16. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-17
Update rfc2518bis reference to draft 18 (note that the bug reported
in <http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=251>
is still present).
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
B.17. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-18
Update: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis replaced by RFC4918.
B.18. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-19
Add and resolve issues "2.1.1-bind-loops", "2.1.1-cycles", "2.5-move-
creating-cycles", "3.1-clarify-resource-id" and "4-precondition-
language".
B.19. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-20
Use "urn:uuid:" instead of "opaquelocktoken:" scheme in examples.
Replace RFC2518bis issue link by pointer to RFC Errata Page.
Add issues "relation-to-deltav" and "status-codes".
B.20. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-21
Resolve issues "relation-to-deltav" and "status-codes".
Add correct content length values to examples (no change bars).
B.21. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-22
Set "Intended Status" to "Experimental".
Update XML reference to "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
Edition)".
B.22. Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-23
Remove surplus white space from one example.
Fix typo: "DAV:binding-set" -> "DAV:parent-set".
Add and resolve issues "clarify-alternate-uri", "def-integrity", "ex-
copy-multiple-update", "ex-copy-graph", and "ex-live-property".
Appendix C. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication)
Issues that were either rejected or resolved in this version of this
document.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
C.1. edit
Type: edit
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2004-05-30): Umbrella issue for
editorial fixes/enhancements.
C.2. def-integrity
In Section 1:
Type: change
alexey.melnikov@isode.com (2009-05-15): Define the term "integrity".
Resolution (2009-05-28): Add definition to Terminology Section.
C.3. ex-copy-multiple-update
In Section 2.3:
Type: edit
alexey.melnikov@isode.com (2009-05-15): Add example for the case: "If
because of multiple bindings to a resource, more than one source
resource updates a single destination resource, the order of the
updates is server defined."
Resolution (2009-05-25): Example added.
C.4. ex-copy-graph
In Section 2.3:
Type: edit
alexey.melnikov@isode.com (2009-05-15): Add example for the case
discussed below: "If a COPY request would cause a new resource to be
created as a copy of an existing resource, and that COPY request has
already created a copy of that existing resource, ..."
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2009-05-18): It seems that we already
have that example, see "2.3.2. Example: COPY with 'Depth: infinity'
with Multiple Bindings to a Leaf Resource".
Resolution (2009-05-25): Added forward reference to example.
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
C.5. ex-live-property
In Section 2.6:
Type: edit
alexey.melnikov@isode.com (2009-05-15): Give an example of a live
property where the value depends on the path.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2009-05-19): Thread in which the latest
version of this paragraph was discussed: <http://lists.w3.org/
Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JulSep/0023.html>.
C.6. clarify-alternate-uri
In Section 3.1:
Type: change
alexey.melnikov@isode.com (2009-05-15): The note about resource-id
being an alternate URI is confusing.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2009-05-25): This was added in draft
19, dealing with issue "3.1-clarify-resource-id" (<http://
greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/
draft-ietf-webdav-bind-issues.html#issue.3.1-clarify-resource-id>).
See also <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/
2007OctDec/0029.html>. Proposal: either clarify (expand) or remove
it.
Resolution (2009-05-25): Statement removed.
Index
2
208 Already Reported (status code) 32, 40
5
506 Loop Detected (status code) 35, 40
B
BIND method 22
Marshalling 23
Postconditions 24
Preconditions 23
Binding 7
Binding Integrity 7-8, 22
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
C
Collection 7
Condition Names
DAV:bind-into-collection (pre) 23
DAV:bind-source-exists (pre) 23
DAV:binding-allowed (pre) 24
DAV:binding-deleted (post) 26, 29
DAV:can-overwrite (pre) 24, 28
DAV:cross-server-binding (pre) 24, 28
DAV:cycle-allowed (pre) 24, 28
DAV:lock-deleted (post) 26, 29
DAV:locked-overwrite-allowed (pre) 24
DAV:locked-source-collection-update-allowed (pre) 29
DAV:locked-update-allowed (pre) 24, 26, 28
DAV:name-allowed (pre) 24, 28
DAV:new-binding (post) 24, 29
DAV:protected-source-url-deletion-allowed (pre) 29
DAV:protected-url-deletion-allowed (pre) 26
DAV:protected-url-modification-allowed (pre) 28
DAV:rebind-from-collection (pre) 28
DAV:rebind-source-exists (pre) 28
DAV:unbind-from-collection (pre) 26
DAV:unbind-source-exists (pre) 26
D
DAV header
compliance class 'bind' 35
DAV:bind-into-collection precondition 23
DAV:bind-source-exists precondition 23
DAV:binding-allowed precondition 24
DAV:binding-deleted postcondition 26, 29
DAV:can-overwrite precondition 24, 28
DAV:cross-server-binding precondition 24, 28
DAV:cycle-allowed precondition 24, 28
DAV:lock-deleted postcondition 26, 29
DAV:locked-overwrite-allowed precondition 24
DAV:locked-source-collection-update-allowed precondition 29
DAV:locked-update-allowed precondition 24, 26, 28
DAV:name-allowed precondition 24, 28
DAV:new-binding postcondition 24, 29
DAV:parent-set property 21
DAV:protected-source-url-deletion-allowed precondition 29
DAV:protected-url-deletion-allowed precondition 26
DAV:protected-url-modification-allowed precondition 28
DAV:rebind-from-collection precondition 28
DAV:rebind-source-exists precondition 28
DAV:resource-id property 20
DAV:unbind-from-collection precondition 26
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
DAV:unbind-source-exists precondition 26
I
Internal Member URI 7
M
Methods
BIND 22
REBIND 27
UNBIND 25
P
Path Segment 6
Properties
DAV:parent-set 21
DAV:resource-id 20
R
REBIND method 27
Marshalling 27
Postconditions 29
Preconditions 28
S
Status Codes
208 Already Reported 32, 40
506 Loop Detected 35, 40
U
UNBIND method 25
Marshalling 25
Postconditions 26
Preconditions 26
URI Mapping 6
Authors' Addresses
Geoffrey Clemm
IBM
20 Maguire Road
Lexington, MA 02421
Email: geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Binding Extensions to WebDAV May 2009
Jason Crawford
IBM Research
P.O. Box 704
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Email: ccjason@us.ibm.com
Julian F. Reschke (editor)
greenbytes GmbH
Hafenweg 16
Muenster, NW 48155
Germany
Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
Jim Whitehead
UC Santa Cruz, Dept. of Computer Science
1156 High Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
Email: ejw@cse.ucsc.edu
Clemm, et al. Expires November 30, 2009 [Page 50]
