Binding Protocol Teleconference Minutes February 9, 2000 Present: Judy Slein, Geoff Clemm, Chuck Fay, Jim Whitehead Minutes recorded by Jim Whitehead *** Note that decisions made during the teleconference are always subject to review on the mailing list. The mailing list is the final arbiter of consensus on any issue. Note also, that the revised Bindings Protocol specification produced as a result of this conference call will also be subject to review by the mailing list. *** Issue #14 (Bind Syntax): Revisiting this issue, since it appears we didn't address all of Yaron's concerns. Decided that should weak bindings be created in the future, they should be created using a different method. Thus, concerns regarding weak bindings should not be used to determine the syntax of the bind method. That said, decided to agree with Roy's comment, and have the Request-URI be the collection that is being operated on to add a new binding. A separate header, Target (or Ref-target), will name the resource that is being bound-to. Another header, BindingName, would give the new name of the binding (in the collection identified by the Request-URI). Discussed whether a change to the dav:bindings property should cause a change to the Etag. Agreed that changes to bindings property should not affect the Etag, since the property modification shouldn't affect the caching of the body of the resource. Need to modify the spec. such that OPTIONS requests are issued to the collection to determine whether bindings can be made to it. Also discussed whether you need read access to the resource being bound-to in order to create/remove a binding to it. Agreed that you do not need read access, although this should not be mentioned in the spec., since we don't have an access control spec., and this could be arguably a server policy issues. Issue #17 (ApplePieToo): Agreed to use Judy's Proposal #1 language, made in her Feb. 2 post. Issue #19 (MrIntegrity): Agreed to remove term "integrity" except for title of section that discusses it. We will instead define it in terms of individual MUST level requirements that capture the desired intent (behavior wrt DELETE, MOVE, overwrite behavior of other methods). In the BIND method, need to explicitly state which requirements must be satisfied (DELETE/MOVE/overwrite against the binding) or the method must fail. Geoff will submit to the list the desired language for the BIND method section. Jim will engage Roy's email posts to ensure we have addressed his concerns. Go into details of dav:resourceid property behavior in PROPFIND section to make restriction against dangling bindings more explicit. Might want to forward reference this from the last paragraph of section 4. Next meeting is two weeks from today. *** End of teleconference ***