Subject: Question on property behaviour descriptions in RFC2518bis

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:02:48 +0200

Hi,

as a follow up to BugZilla issue 247 
(http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247>) which 
I opened a few days ago (but which was originally raised during Last 
Call) I'm currently confused by statements like:

    COPY/MOVE behaviour:  This property value SHOULD be kept during a
       MOVE operation, but is normally re-initialized when a resource is
       created with a COPY.  It should not be set in a COPY.

(see 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-15.html#rfc.section.15.1>).

Questions:

1) When a resource is being created, shouldn't DAV:creationdate *always* 
be set (by definition?)

2) What does "should not be set in a COPY" mean? What does "in a COPY" 
refer to?

There are similar problems with other COPY/MOVE behaviour statements, 
but maybe we can focus on this one first...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Werner Donné <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:26:51 +0200

Hi Julian,

> 1) When a resource is being created, shouldn't DAV:creationdate *always*

My understanding of this is that the property is indeed set when a new
resource is created during a COPY.

> 2) What does "should not be set in a COPY" mean? What does "in a COPY"

I think this refers to the case when an existing resource is overwritten.
The creationdate shouldn't be updated because the resource is merely
being updated. The getlastmodified property on the other hand would be
set, but to the value corresponding to the time of the COPY operation.

> but maybe we can focus on this one first...

Best regards,

Werner.
-- 
Werner Donné  --  Re
Engelbeekstraat 8
B-3300 Tienen
tel: (+32) 486 425803	e-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Manfred Baedke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:46:40 +0200

Hi Werner,

> resource is created during a COPY.
Yes, but as Julian pointed out, there is nothing special about a 
resource created by a COPY (compared to resources created by any other 
method). So what is the statement good for?

> set, but to the value corresponding to the time of the COPY operation.
It is indeed possible that this meaning is intended. If so, one should 
at least change the wording in a way that this meaning is clear, but I'd 
prefer to remove the statement. Either a resource is created during the 
COPY or not, and this property behaves accordingly. I think this is 
pretty clear.

>> but maybe we can focus on this one first...

Regards,
Manfred

---

From: Werner Donné <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:10:45 +0200

Hi Manfred,

I agree that the statement is not needed. Perhaps it stems from
what is written in section 8.8.2 about live properties.

Regards,

Werner.

---

From: Manfred Baedke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:16:10 +0200

Hi Werner,

> what is written in section 8.8.2 about live properties.
Section 8.8.2 does not exist in RFC2518bis, only in RFC2518, so it has 
no relevance here.

Regards,
Manfred