draft-ietf-webdav-bind-09.txt		draft-ietf-webdav-bind-10.txt
	Network Working Group G. Clemm		Network Working Group G. Clemm
	Internet-Draft IBM		Internet-Draft IBM
	Updates: 2518 (if approved) J. Crawford		Updates: 2518 (if approved) J. Crawford
	Expires: June 9, 2005 IBM Research		Expires: July 6, 2005 IBM Research
	J. Reschke		J. Reschke
	greenbytes		greenbytes
	J. Whitehead		J. Whitehead
	U.C. Santa Cruz		U.C. Santa Cruz
	December 9, 2004		January 5, 2005
	Binding Extensions to Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning		Binding Extensions to Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning
	(WebDAV)		(WebDAV)
	draft-ietf-webdav-bind-09		draft-ietf-webdav-bind-10
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions		This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
	of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each		of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
	author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of		author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
	which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of		which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
	which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with		which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
	RFC 3668.		RFC 3668.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 42		skipping to change at page 1, line 42
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on June 9, 2005.		This Internet-Draft will expire on July 6, 2005.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).		Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
	Abstract		Abstract
	This specification defines bindings, and the BIND method for creating		This specification defines bindings, and the BIND method for creating
	multiple bindings to the same resource. Creating a new binding to a		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.		resource causes at least one new URI to be mapped to that resource.
	Servers are required to insure the integrity of any bindings that		Servers are required to insure the integrity of any bindings that
	they allow to be created.		they allow to be created.
	Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)		Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
	skipping to change at page 3, line 22		skipping to change at page 3, line 22
	2.1 Bindings to Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		2.1 Bindings to Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	2.1.1 Bind loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		2.1.1 Bind loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	2.2 URI Mappings Created by a new Binding . . . . . . . . . . 10		2.2 URI Mappings Created by a new Binding . . . . . . . . . . 10
	2.3 COPY and Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		2.3 COPY and Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	2.3.1 Example: COPY with 'Depth: infinity' in presence		2.3.1 Example: COPY with 'Depth: infinity' in presence
	of bind loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		of bind loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	2.3.2 Example: COPY with 'Depth: infinity' with multiple		2.3.2 Example: COPY with 'Depth: infinity' with multiple
	bindings to a leaf resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		bindings to a leaf resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	2.4 DELETE and Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		2.4 DELETE and Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	2.5 MOVE and Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		2.5 MOVE and Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	2.6 Determining Whether Two Bindings Are to the Same		2.6 PROPFIND and Bindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
			2.7 Determining Whether Two Bindings Are to the Same
	Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	2.7 Discovering the Bindings to a Resource . . . . . . . . . . 17		2.8 Discovering the Bindings to a Resource . . . . . . . . . . 17
	3. Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		3. Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	3.1 DAV:resource-id Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		3.1 DAV:resource-id Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	3.2 DAV:parent-set Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		3.2 DAV:parent-set Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	3.2.1 Example for DAV:parent-set property . . . . . . . . . 18		3.2.1 Example for DAV:parent-set property . . . . . . . . . 18
	4. BIND Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		4. BIND Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	4.1 Example: BIND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		4.1 Example: BIND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	5. UNBIND Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22		5. UNBIND Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
	5.1 Example: UNBIND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		5.1 Example: UNBIND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	6. REBIND Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24		6. REBIND Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
	6.1 Example: REBIND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26		6.1 Example: REBIND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
	7. Additional Status Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		6.2 Example: REBIND in presence of locks and bind loops . . . 27
	7.1 208 Already Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27		7. Additional Status Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	7.1.1 Example: PROPFIND by bind-aware client . . . . . . . . 27		7.1 208 Already Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
	7.1.2 Example: PROPFIND by non-bind-aware client . . . . . . 29		7.1.1 Example: PROPFIND by bind-aware client . . . . . . . . 30
	7.2 506 Loop Detected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29		7.1.2 Example: PROPFIND by non-bind-aware client . . . . . . 31
	8. Capability discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		7.2 506 Loop Detected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
	8.1 OPTIONS method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		8. Capability discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
	8.2 'DAV' request header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		8.1 OPTIONS method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
	8.2.1 Generic syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		8.2 'DAV' request header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
	8.2.2 Client compliance class 'bind' . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		8.2.1 Generic syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30		8.2.2 Client compliance class 'bind' . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
	9.1 Privacy Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
	9.2 Bind Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31		9.1 Privacy Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
	9.3 Bindings, and Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31		9.2 Bind Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
	9.4 Private Locations May Be Revealed . . . . . . . . . . . . 31		9.3 Bindings, and Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
	9.5 DAV:parent-set and Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . 31		9.4 Private Locations May Be Revealed . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
	10. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 31		9.5 DAV:parent-set and Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . 34
	11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		10. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
	12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
	13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
	13.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
	13.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32		13.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33		13.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
	A. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication) . 33		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
	A.1 Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33		A. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication) . 36
	A.2 Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34		A.1 Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
	A.3 Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34		A.2 Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
	A.4 Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34		A.3 Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
	A.5 Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34		A.4 Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
	A.6 Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34		A.5 Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
	A.7 Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34		A.6 Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
			A.7 Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
			A.8 Since draft-ietf-webdav-bind-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
	B. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor before		B. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor before
	publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35		publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
	B.1 2_allow_destroy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35		B.1 uri_draft_ref . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
	B.2 2.1_separate_loop_discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35		B.2 2.6_bindings_vs_properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
	B.3 2.1.1_bind_loops_vs_locks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35		B.3 2.6_when_do_ids_change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
	B.4 2.3_copy_depth_infinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36		B.4 6.1_rebind_vs_locks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
	B.5 2.3_copy_vs_loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
	B.6 2.3_copy_example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
	B.7 2.6_resource-id_vs_versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
	B.8 3.2_example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
	B.9 atomicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
	B.10 6_rebind_intro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
	B.11 6_rebind_premissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
	C. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to		C. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to
	publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39		publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
	C.1 edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39		C.1 edit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
	C.2 2.6_when_do_ids_change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39		C.2 3.1_uuids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
	Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40		Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
	Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 42		Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 42
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This specification extends the WebDAV Distributed Authoring Protocol		This specification extends the WebDAV Distributed Authoring Protocol
	to enable clients to create new access paths to existing resources.		to enable clients to create new access paths to existing resources.
	This capability is useful for several reasons:		This capability is useful for several reasons:
	URIs of WebDAV-compliant resources are hierarchical and correspond to		URIs of WebDAV-compliant resources are hierarchical and correspond to
	skipping to change at page 7, line 16		skipping to change at page 7, line 16
	items that are not network retrievable, as well as those that are,		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		it is possible for a resource to have zero, one, or many URI
	mappings. Mapping a resource to an "http" scheme URI makes it		mappings. Mapping a resource to an "http" scheme URI makes it
	possible to submit HTTP protocol requests to the resource using		possible to submit HTTP protocol requests to the resource using
	the URI.		the URI.
	Path Segment		Path Segment
	Informally, the characters found between slashes ("/") in a URI.		Informally, the characters found between slashes ("/") in a URI.
	Formally, as defined in section 3.3 of		Formally, as defined in section 3.3 of
	[draft-fielding-rfc2396bis].		[draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis].
	Binding		Binding
	A relation between a single path segment (in a collection) and a		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		resource. A binding is part of the state of a collection. If two
	different collections contain a binding between the same path		different collections contain a binding between the same path
	segment and the same resource, these are two distinct bindings.		segment and the same resource, these are two distinct bindings.
	So for a collection C, a path segment S, and a resource R, the		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		binding can be thought of as C:(S -> R). Bindings create URI
	mappings, and hence allow requests to be sent to a single resource		mappings, and hence allow requests to be sent to a single resource
	skipping to change at page 16, line 41		skipping to change at page 16, line 41
	>> After Request:		>> After Request:
	URI-1 URI-2 URI-X		URI-1 URI-2 URI-X
	| | |		| | |
	| | | <---- URI Mappings		| | | <---- URI Mappings
	| | |		| | |
	+---------------------+		+---------------------+
	| Resource R |		| Resource R |
	+---------------------+		+---------------------+
	2.6 Determining Whether Two Bindings Are to the Same Resource		2.6 PROPFIND and Bindings
			Consistent with [RFC2518] the value of a dead property MUST be, and
			the value of a live property SHOULD be, independent of the number of
			bindings to its host resource or of the path submitted to PROPFIND.
			2.7 Determining Whether Two Bindings Are to the Same Resource
	It is useful to have some way of determining whether two bindings are		It is useful to have some way of determining whether two bindings are
	to the same resource. Two resources might have identical contents		to the same resource. Two resources might have identical contents
	and properties, but not be the same resource (e.g. an update to one		and properties, but not be the same resource (e.g. an update to one
	resource does not affect the other resource).		resource does not affect the other resource).
	The REQUIRED DAV:resource-id property defined in Section 3.1 is a		The REQUIRED DAV:resource-id property defined in Section 3.1 is a
	resource identifier, which MUST be unique across all resources for		resource identifier, which MUST be unique across all resources for
	all time. If the values of DAV:resource-id returned by PROPFIND		all time. If the values of DAV:resource-id returned by PROPFIND
	requests through two bindings are identical character by character,		requests through two bindings are identical character by character,
	skipping to change at page 17, line 27		skipping to change at page 17, line 33
	CHECKIN (see [RFC3253], section 4.4) must assign a new, unique value		CHECKIN (see [RFC3253], section 4.4) must assign a new, unique value
	to the DAV:resource-id property of the new resource they create.		to the DAV:resource-id property of the new resource they create.
	On the other hand, any method that affects an existing resource must		On the other hand, any method that affects an existing resource must
	not change the value of its DAV:resource-id property. Specifically,		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		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		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		create a new resource, but only changes the location of an existing
	resource, must not change the value of the DAV:resource-id property.		resource, must not change the value of the DAV:resource-id property.
	2.7 Discovering the Bindings to a Resource		2.8 Discovering the Bindings to a Resource
	An OPTIONAL DAV:parent-set property on a resource provides a list of		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		the bindings that associate a collection and a URI segment with that
	resource. If the DAV:parent-set property exists on a given resource,		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		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 client is authorized to see. When deciding whether to support
	the DAV:parent-set property, server implementers / administrators		the DAV:parent-set property, server implementers / administrators
	should balance the benefits it provides against the cost of		should balance the benefits it provides against the cost of
	maintaining the property and the security risks enumerated in		maintaining the property and the security risks enumerated in
	Sections 9.4 and 9.5.		Sections 9.4 and 9.5.
	skipping to change at page 18, line 30		skipping to change at page 18, line 36
	resource in that collection.		resource in that collection.
	A given collection MUST appear only once in the DAV:parent-set for		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		any given binding, even if there are multiple URI mappings to that
	collection.		collection.
	<!ELEMENT parent-set (parent)*>		<!ELEMENT parent-set (parent)*>
	<!ELEMENT parent (href, segment)>		<!ELEMENT parent (href, segment)>
	<!ELEMENT segment (#PCDATA)>		<!ELEMENT segment (#PCDATA)>
	<!-- PCDATA value: segment, as defined in section 3.3 of		<!-- PCDATA value: segment, as defined in section 3.3 of
	[draft-fielding-rfc2396bis] -->		[draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis] -->
	3.2.1 Example for DAV:parent-set property		3.2.1 Example for DAV:parent-set property
	For example, if collection C1 is mapped to both /CollX and /CollY,		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		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		[/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		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:binding-set of		R1, then there would be two entries for C1 in the DAV:binding-set of
	R1 (i.e. both [/CollX, x.gif] and [/CollX, y.gif] or, alternatively,		R1 (i.e. both [/CollX, x.gif] and [/CollX, y.gif] or, alternatively,
	both [/CollY, x.gif] and [/CollY, y.gif]).		both [/CollY, x.gif] and [/CollY, y.gif]).
	skipping to change at page 27, line 6		skipping to change at page 27, line 6
	"http://www.example.com/CollX", associating "foo.html" with the		"http://www.example.com/CollX", associating "foo.html" with the
	resource identified by the URI		resource identified by the URI
	"http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html", and removes the binding		"http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html", and removes the binding
	named "bar.html" from the collection identified by the URI		named "bar.html" from the collection identified by the URI
	"http://www.example.com/CollY". Clients can now use the URI		"http://www.example.com/CollY". Clients can now use the URI
	"http://www.example.com/CollX/foo.html" to submit requests to that		"http://www.example.com/CollX/foo.html" to submit requests to that
	resource, and requests on the URI		resource, and requests on the URI
	"http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html" will fail with a 404 (Not		"http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html" will fail with a 404 (Not
	Found) response.		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 "opaquelocktoken:f92d4fae-7012-11ab-a765-00c0ca1f6bf9").
			Note that the binding between CollZ and C1 creates a loop in the
			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: (<opaquelocktoken:f92d4fae-7012-11ab-a765-00c0ca1f6bf9>)
			Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8"
			Content-Length: xxx
			<?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>
			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. Additional Status Codes
	7.1 208 Already Reported		7.1 208 Already Reported
	The 208 (Already Reported) status code can be used inside a		The 208 (Already Reported) status code can be used inside a
	DAV:propstat response element to avoid enumerating the internal		DAV:propstat response element to avoid enumerating the internal
	members of multiple bindings to the same collection repeatedly. For		members of multiple bindings to the same collection repeatedly. For
	each binding to a collection inside the request's scope, only one		each binding to a collection inside the request's scope, only one
	will be reported with a 200 status, while subsequent DAV:response		will be reported with a 200 status, while subsequent DAV:response
	elements for all other bindings will use the 208 status, and no		elements for all other bindings will use the 208 status, and no
	skipping to change at page 32, line 45		skipping to change at page 35, line 25
	[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,		[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
	Masinter, L., Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext		Masinter, L., Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
	Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.		Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
	[XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E. and		[XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E. and
	F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Third		F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Third
	Edition)", W3C REC-xml-20040204, February 2004,		Edition)", W3C REC-xml-20040204, February 2004,
	<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204>.		<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204>.
	[draft-fielding-rfc2396bis]		[draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis]
	Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform		Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform
	Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", ID		Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax",
	draft-fielding-rfc2396bis-07, September 2004.		draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-07 (work in progress),
			September 2004.
	13.2 Informative References		13.2 Informative References
	[RFC3253] Clemm, G., Amsden, J., Ellison, T., Kaler, C. and J.		[RFC3253] Clemm, G., Amsden, J., Ellison, T., Kaler, C. and J.
	Whitehead, "Versioning Extensions to WebDAV (Web		Whitehead, "Versioning Extensions to WebDAV (Web
	Distributed Authoring and Versioning)", RFC 3253, March		Distributed Authoring and Versioning)", RFC 3253, March
	2002.		2002.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Geoffrey Clemm		Geoffrey Clemm
	IBM		IBM
	20 Maguire Road		20 Maguire Road
	Lexington, MA 02421		Lexington, MA 02421
	skipping to change at page 35, line 5		skipping to change at page 37, line 36
	Resolved editorial issues raised by Jim Whitehead in		Resolved editorial issues raised by Jim Whitehead in
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0129.ht		<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0129.ht
	ml>. Add and resolve issues "atomicity", "2_allow_destroy",		ml>. Add and resolve issues "atomicity", "2_allow_destroy",
	"2.1_separate_loop_discussion", "2.1.1_bind_loops_vs_locks",		"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",		"2.3_copy_depth_infinity", "2.3_copy_example", "2.3_copy_vs_loops",
	"2.6_resource-id_vs_versions", "3.2_example" and		"2.6_resource-id_vs_versions", "3.2_example" and
	"6_rebind_premissions". Add issue "2.6_when_do_ids_change". Re-open		"6_rebind_premissions". Add issue "2.6_when_do_ids_change". Re-open
	and resolve "6_rebind_intro".		and resolve "6_rebind_intro".
			A.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".
	Appendix B. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor before		Appendix B. Resolved issues (to be removed by RFC Editor before
	publication)		publication)
	Issues that were either rejected or resolved in this version of this		Issues that were either rejected or resolved in this version of this
	document.		document.
	B.1 2_allow_destroy		B.1 uri_draft_ref
	Type: change
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0129.ht
	ml>
	ejw@cs.ucsc.edu (2004-11-29): The language here would preclude the
	future definition of a DESTROY method which had the semantics of
	removing the state of a resource from a server, irregardless of any
	containment relationships that may hold it. Such a method could be
	quite useful for records management functionality, in order to
	implement a records disposition policy that specified deletion at a
	certain time. My recommended tweak to the language of section 2 is
	minor: add the following sentence to the end of the paragraph: "It is
	permissible, however, for future method definitions (e.g., a DESTROY
	method) to have semantics that remove all bindings and/or immediately
	reclaim system resources."
	Resolution (2004-11-30): Agreed to add statement about methods that
	explicitly have that semantics.
	B.2 2.1_separate_loop_discussion
	Type: edit		Type: edit
			julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2005-01-01): Fix reference to
			draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-07
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0129.ht		B.2 2.6_bindings_vs_properties
	ml>
	ejw@cs.ucsc.edu (2004-11-29): I think it would be more clear to
	separate out the discussion of loops and bindings, and make it a
	separate section (say, 2.2) This issue comes up frequently enough
	that it would be good to make it easy to find this issue in the TOC.
	Also, a mention of the Already Reported status code would be good to
	have here, since it also mentions 506.
	Resolution (2004-11-30): Agreed to move 1st paragraph into separate
	subsection.
	B.3 2.1.1_bind_loops_vs_locks
	Type: change
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0217.ht
	ml>
	ejw@cs.ucsc.edu (2004-12-03): ...The other is the semantics of the
	lock operation in the presence of loopback bindings. I think the
	handling of If headers is relatively straightforward. The semantics
	of locking are not....
	Resolution (2004-12-09): After some discussion, the working group
	agreed that we don't want to define special semantics for
	depth:infinity locks, thus the standard lock sematics apply (see
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0271.htm
	l).
	B.4 2.3_copy_depth_infinity
	Type: change
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0129.ht
	ml>
	ejw@cs.ucsc.edu (2004-11-29): This section doesn't clearly address
	the semantics of COPY with Depth infinity. My recommendation is to
	add, after paragraph 3, text like this: "As specified in [RFC2518], a
	COPY with Depth infinity causes the collection resource to be
	duplicated, all of its bound children to be duplicated, and their
	children's bound children, and so on, to the bottom of the
	containment hierarchy. All of the segments of the bindings of the
	destination collection are the same as for the destination
	collection. However, the destination resource for all bindings in
	the destination collection are different from those of the source
	collection, since all resources have been duplicated, creating new
	resources with distinct DAV:resource-id properties."
	Resolution (2004-12-02): Example added.
	B.5 2.3_copy_vs_loops
	Type: change
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0129.ht
	ml>
	ejw@cs.ucsc.edu (2004-11-29): There should also be some text
	addressing COPY depth infinity and loops -- in some instances during
	a COPY with Depth infinity, the server really wants to recreate the
	binding that causes the loop, rather than continuing to make
	duplicate resources. This is somewhat addressed by the final
	paragraph in Section 2.3, but not exactly.
	Resolution (2004-12-02): Can be closed after copy/depth:infinity
	example was added (see
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0181.htm
	l).
	B.6 2.3_copy_example
	Type: change		Type: change
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0129.ht		<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0248.ht
	ml>		ml>
	ejw@cs.ucsc.edu (2004-11-29): It might make sense to create an		ejw@cs.ucsc.edu (2004-12-06): I think it would be good to include the
	example covering the situation described in the final paragraph of		following language in the bind specification: Note that, consistent
	Section 2.3. I'm not 100% sure I know what scenario this paragraph		with [RFC2518], the value of a dead property is independent of the
	addresses, other reading the spec. for the first time would		number of bindings to its host resource, and of the path submitted to
	presumably have a tougher time.		PROPFIND. Since live properties can be aribtrary computational
			processes, they MAY vary depending on path or number of bindings, but
			SHOULD NOT do this unless the definition of the live property
			explicitly includes this dependency. Here I avoided adding new
			requirements in areas already covered by 2518, but did add
			requirements for the new situation raised by the BIND specification.
	Resolution (2004-12-02): Example added.		Resolution (2004-12-14): Add that statement (see
			http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0299.htm
			l and subsequent messages).
	B.7 2.6_resource-id_vs_versions		B.3 2.6_when_do_ids_change
	Type: change		Type: change
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0129.ht		<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0129.ht
	ml>		ml>
	ejw@cs.ucsc.edu (2004-11-29): There needs to be some discussion on		ejw@cs.ucsc.edu (2004-11-29): Change "must not" to "MUST NOT" (and
	the interactions of DAV:resource-id and versioning. As near as I can		eliminate the "For example" at the start of the sentence -- perhaps
	tell, the intent is that every revision will have a unique		change to "Specifically,"
	DAV:resource-id value.
	Resolution (2004-12-01): Mention in an example.
	B.8 3.2_example
	Type: change
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0129.ht
	ml>
	ejw@cs.ucsc.edu (2004-11-29): I think it would be helpful to have an		julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2004-11-30): Fix language, replace MOVE
	example of this property. I'd be happy to help develop such an		by REBIND (because MOVE may be implemented as COPY/DELETE). Unclear
	example.		whether we need more changes.
	Resolution (2004-11-30): Example added, including diagram.		Resolution (2004-12-13): Closed (see
			http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0300.htm
			l).
	B.9 atomicity		B.4 6.1_rebind_vs_locks
	Type: change		Type: change
			<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0281.ht
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0129.ht
	ml>
	ejw@cs.ucsc.edu (2004-11-29): The intent of the BIND method is for
	its behavior to be atomic. However, this is never actually stated
	explicitly in the specification. Seems like it should be.
	Resolution (2004-11-30): Agreed. Steal text from RFC3253 (applies to
	all method definitions).
	B.10 6_rebind_intro
	Type: edit
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0044.ht
	ml>		ml>
	ejw@cs.ucsc.edu (2004-11-12): I'm reading through the BIND		ejw@cs.ucsc.edu (2004-12-09): (Request to add a REBIND example that
	specification, and the description of the REBIND method's operands is		requires submitting a lock token)
	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.
	Resolution (2004-12-02): Agreed and fixed (fixed again after it was
	broken in -08).
	B.11 6_rebind_premissions
	Type: edit
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0218.ht
	ml>
	ejw@cs.ucsc.edu (2004-12-03): I agree with Lisa that the access		Resolution (2004-12-21): Example added.
	control implications of REBIND should be made explicit. My
	suggestion is to add the following language to Section 6. Change:
	"It is effectively an atomic form of a MOVE request." To: "It is
	effectively an atomic form of a MOVE request, and MUST be treated as
	a MOVE for the purpose of determining access permissions (see RFC
	3744, Appendix B)."
	Resolution (2004-12-03): Make that statement, but avoid the
	unnecessary normative reference to RFC3744.
	Appendix C. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to		Appendix C. Open issues (to be removed by RFC Editor prior to
	publication)		publication)
	C.1 edit		C.1 edit
	Type: edit		Type: edit
	julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2004-05-30): Umbrella issue for		julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2004-05-30): Umbrella issue for
	editorial fixes/enhancements.		editorial fixes/enhancements.
	C.2 2.6_when_do_ids_change		C.2 3.1_uuids
	Type: change
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0129.ht
	ml>
	ejw@cs.ucsc.edu (2004-11-29): Change "must not" to "MUST NOT" (and		Type: edit
	eliminate the "For example" at the start of the sentence -- perhaps
	change to "Specifically,"
	julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2004-11-30): Fix language, replace MOVE		julian.reschke@greenbytes.de (2004-12-11): Action item: if
	by REBIND (because MOVE may be implemented as COPY/DELETE). Unclear		draft-mealling-uuid-urn gets accepted in time, consider referencing
	whether we need more changes.		it and using urn:uuid URIs instead of opaquelocktoken URIs. See IETF
			I-D Tracker.
	Index		Index
	2		2
	208 Already Reported (status code) 27		208 Already Reported (status code) 29
	5		5
	506 Loop Detected (status code) 29		506 Loop Detected (status code) 32
	B		B
	BIND method 19		BIND method 19
	Binding 7		Binding 7
	C		C
	Collection 7		Collection 7
	Condition Names		Condition Names
	DAV:bind-into-collection (pre) 20		DAV:bind-into-collection (pre) 20
	DAV:bind-source-exists (pre) 20		DAV:bind-source-exists (pre) 20
	skipping to change at page 40, line 43		skipping to change at page 40, line 43
	DAV:protected-source-url-deletion-allowed (pre) 26		DAV:protected-source-url-deletion-allowed (pre) 26
	DAV:protected-url-deletion-allowed (pre) 23		DAV:protected-url-deletion-allowed (pre) 23
	DAV:protected-url-modification-allowed (pre) 25		DAV:protected-url-modification-allowed (pre) 25
	DAV:rebind-from-collection (pre) 25		DAV:rebind-from-collection (pre) 25
	DAV:rebind-source-exists (pre) 25		DAV:rebind-source-exists (pre) 25
	DAV:unbind-from-collection (pre) 23		DAV:unbind-from-collection (pre) 23
	DAV:unbind-source-exists (pre) 23		DAV:unbind-source-exists (pre) 23
	D		D
	DAV header		DAV header
	compliance class 'bind' 30		compliance class 'bind' 32
	DAV:bind-into-collection precondition 20		DAV:bind-into-collection precondition 20
	DAV:bind-source-exists precondition 20		DAV:bind-source-exists precondition 20
	DAV:binding-allowed precondition 20		DAV:binding-allowed precondition 20
	DAV:binding-deleted postcondition 23, 26		DAV:binding-deleted postcondition 23, 26
	DAV:can-overwrite precondition 21, 25		DAV:can-overwrite precondition 21, 25
	DAV:cross-server-binding precondition 21, 25		DAV:cross-server-binding precondition 21, 25
	DAV:cycle-allowed precondition 21, 25		DAV:cycle-allowed precondition 21, 25
	DAV:lock-deleted postcondition 23, 26		DAV:lock-deleted postcondition 23, 26
	DAV:locked-overwrite-allowed precondition 21		DAV:locked-overwrite-allowed precondition 21
	DAV:locked-source-collection-update-allowed precondition 25		DAV:locked-source-collection-update-allowed precondition 25
	DAV:locked-update-allowed precondition 21, 23, 25		DAV:locked-update-allowed precondition 21, 23, 25
	DAV:name-allowed precondition 21, 25		DAV:name-allowed precondition 21, 25
	DAV:new-binding postcondition 21, 26		DAV:new-binding postcondition 21, 26
	DAV:parent-set property 18		DAV:parent-set property 18
	DAV:protected-source-url-deletion-allowed precondition 26		DAV:protected-source-url-deletion-allowed precondition 26
	DAV:protected-url-deletion-allowed precondition 23		DAV:protected-url-deletion-allowed precondition 23
	DAV:protected-url-modification-allowed precondition 25		DAV:protected-url-modification-allowed precondition 25
	DAV:rebind-from-collection precondition 25		DAV:rebind-from-collection precondition 25
	DAV:rebind-source-exists precondition 25		DAV:rebind-source-exists precondition 25
	DAV:resource-id property 17		DAV:resource-id property 18
	DAV:unbind-from-collection precondition 23		DAV:unbind-from-collection precondition 23
	DAV:unbind-source-exists precondition 23		DAV:unbind-source-exists precondition 23
	I		I
	Internal Member URI 7		Internal Member URI 7
	M		M
	Methods		Methods
	BIND 19		BIND 19
	REBIND 24		REBIND 24
	UNBIND 22		UNBIND 22
	P		P
	Path Segment 7		Path Segment 7
	Properties		Properties
	DAV:parent-set 18		DAV:parent-set 18
	DAV:resource-id 17		DAV:resource-id 18
	R		R
	REBIND method 24		REBIND method 24
	S		S
	Status Codes		Status Codes
	208 Already Reported 27		208 Already Reported 29
	506 Loop Detected 29		506 Loop Detected 32
	U		U
	UNBIND method 22		UNBIND method 22
	URI Mapping 6		URI Mapping 6
	Intellectual Property Statement		Intellectual Property Statement
	The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any		The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
	Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to		Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
	pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in		pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
	skipping to change at page 42, line 41		skipping to change at page 42, line 41
	This document and the information contained herein are provided on an		This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
	"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS		"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
	OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET		OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
	ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,		ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
	INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE		INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
	INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED		INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
	WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.		WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
	Copyright Statement		Copyright Statement
	Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject		Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
	to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and		to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
	except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.		except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
	Acknowledgment		Acknowledgment
	Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the		Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
	Internet Society.		Internet Society.
End of changes.
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/