Subject: Comment on UNBIND language in BIND specification

From: "Jim Whitehead" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:22:47 -0800

I'm reading through the BIND specification, and the description of the
REBIND method's operands is a bit unclear to me. I'm assuming the intent is
similar to BIND and UNBIND, each of which clearly state in the first
sentence what role the Request-URI, segment, and href fields play. In my
reading I just jumped right into the spec. at this method (typical reference
reading pattern), and hence I didn't initially see the similarity with the
BIND and UNBIND method operands.

- Jim

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:33:29 +0100

> BIND and UNBIND method operands.

Agreed.

Would replacing

"The REBIND method removes a binding to a resource from one collection, 
and adds a binding to that resource into another collection. It is 
effectively an atomic form of a MOVE request."

by

"The REBIND method removes a binding to a resource from the collection 
identified by the Request-URI, and adds a binding to that resource into 
another collection. It is effectively an atomic form of a MOVE request."

be sufficient?

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:21:33 +0100

> another collection. It is effectively an atomic form of a MOVE request."

I expanded the replacement further to:

    The REBIND method removes a binding to a resource from the collection
    identified by the Request-URI, and adds a binding to that resource
    into another collection.  The request body specifies the segment to
    be removed and the new binding to be created (href element).  It is
    effectively an atomic form of a MOVE request.

(Issue tracked as 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-issues.html#6_rebind_intro> 
and currently marked as "closed").

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Jim Whitehead" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:19:19 -0800

Julian,

>     effectively an atomic form of a MOVE request.

I like this language, though I suggest the following tweak for the second
sentence to fix the fact that we're not removing a segment, we're removing a
binding:

The request body specifies the binding to be removed (segment) and the new
binding to be created (href).

- Jim

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 20:08:55 +0100

> binding to be created (href).

Good catch. I'll make that change.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:57:13 +0100

> Good catch. I'll make that change.

OK,

the current edits are at 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html> 
(issues list: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-issues.html>) 
-- www.webdav.org seems to be down right now, so I can't update it.

Again, as far as I can tell, there are no issues left that haven't been 
discussed here on the mailing list before. Note that I assume that if an 
issue is raised and discussed here without any feedback from the 
original poster, I can assume it's resolved.

I therefore plan to submit this version as draft 08 which then should 
get it's working group last call.

Best regards, Julian