1 / 11

WebDAV: Agenda

WebDAV: Agenda. Find someone to record minutes Open issues in the ACL specification Reviving DASL Improved status reporting (Dusseault) Moving RFC 2518 to Draft status Process for moving forward Discussion of issues list items. Open Issues in ACL Specification. Null resources and ACLs

semah
Download Presentation

WebDAV: Agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WebDAV: Agenda • Find someone to record minutes • Open issues in the ACL specification • Reviving DASL • Improved status reporting (Dusseault) • Moving RFC 2518 to Draft status • Process for moving forward • Discussion of issues list items

  2. Open Issues in ACL Specification • Null resources and ACLs • Does a null resource, and a lock null resource have an ACL? • Is it possible to use ldap scheme URLs for principal identifiers? • Either ldap-URL property, or not allowed • ACL properties returned by a PROPFIND allprop • None, some, all? MAY/SHOULD/MUST? • View on list: MUST NOT return any ACL properties on PROPFIND allprop (room agrees)

  3. ACLs • What URIs schemes should be allowed for identifying principals? • Limited set http(s), ldap(s) • http(s) defined in ACL spec. – others must be explicitly defined by an additional specification • Or, a URL that identifies a “WebDAV” principal resource • Anything (no constraints) •  closest to sense ot the room Anything, but servers SHOULD use http(s), which is a privileged scheme that points to resources that SHOULD have additional properties

  4. ACLs (2) • Should principal resources have an optional property “alternateURL” that can point off to, e.g., an LDAP accessible network resource? • Sense of the room is, yes. • Need to provide information in the specification on how, exactly, a client might make use of this feature to provide a richer user experience. • Document likely URL schemes (ldap, mailto) that may appear in here.

  5. ACLs (2.5) • Provisionally (subject to list discussion), can eliminate the authentication-id property. The AlternateURL property can cover many of the use cases envisioned for authentication-id. • Or, make sure that the use of each principal property (Displayname, authentication-id, etc.) is known, agreed to, and considered important enough to justify the property.

  6. ACL (3) • Isprincipal property • Use case: clients can use this property to decide how to display the resource in a UI (I.e., choice of icon for the principal resource) • Sense of the room (with some objection) Leave as isprincipal property • Put type info into resourcetype property • Get rid of this altogether • Not super strong sentiment either way. • Also need to add info to RFC 2518 for what to put into resourcetype when adding interfaces/new typed objects – record interfaces in resourcetype

  7. ACL (4) • Add a note that certain methods (GET, PUT, etc.) are intentionally left undefined on principal resources

  8. PROPFIND allprop • Should PROPFIND allprop be the default behavior of PROPFIND • Sense of the room: move away from this • Should PROPFIND allprop be eliminated alltogether? • Deprecate this behavior, then hopefully eliminate this when going to Standard • Long-term process (~10 years) • In RFC 2518 revision, need to document the reasons for why this is being deprecated (significant performance issues) • Only return dead properties, not live ones.

  9. Reviving DASL • DASL specification has been dormant for some time • As Chair, I would like feedback on: • Who is interested in seeing this specification completed? • A few hands • When (relative to other WebDAV and DeltaV activities) this specification should be completed? • Look at synergy/interactions between DASL and XML-Query – give XML-Query info that DASL exists, should be part of their design space. • Sentiment that, since it is the same group of people working on DAV/DeltaV specifications, DASL should remain dormant • Who is willing to work on this specification? • Move existing DASL specification to Informational/Experimental – add note that Xythos has implemented? • Sense of the room

  10. Moving RFC 2518 to Draft • Four-part process: • Resolve Issues List items on mailing list • Goal: handle 2 a week • Document solutions with pros/cons • Hold face-to-face interoperability bake-off • Flush out new issues • Develop test plan document on mailing list • Aim for late May/June

  11. Moving RFC 2518 to Draft • Process (cont’d) • Develop an online form to gather initial implementation and testing data • Used successfully for HTTP/1.1 • Create a farm of significant server implementations for ongoing interop testing • I can host and administer machines at UC Santa Cruz (on the open Internet), but I cannot afford the machines/software • Donations needed

More Related