Subject: Re: New RFC2518bis draft, COPY / MOVE of live properities

From: Jason Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:47:35 -0400

Dan,
  I've written a long answer to your posting, but I think I'll just send a
short one.

  I tend to agree with Lisa.  The way we've specified it now seems like the
best we're
going to do right now.  COPY creates a new resource that is modeled on the
source on
a "best effort' basis whereas MOVE simply changes the URL at which
we access a resource.    And we've chosen to suggest that COPY (by default)
just do the equivalent of of GET/PUT prop FIND/PATCH.

I do see value in what you say at the end of your note.  There might be
value in
a COPY'ing server to state how it treated the liveness of properties it
just copied.
Similarly it might be nice for a client to be able to point to a resource
and ask a server what liveness constraints it's trying to maintain on
various
properties.   But didn't we just remove the keep-alive feature? Apparently
this
wasn't used.  So I'm hesitant to spend time working on liveness management
features right now.  Maybe later.  I don't think what we're currently
proposing
closes the door on this.

J.

------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 12:34:41 +0200

> features right now.  Maybe later.  I don't think what we're currently

(agreed)