| Network Working Group | G. Clemm |
| Internet-Draft | IBM |
| Intended status: Experimental Protocol | J. Crawford |
| Expires: June 16, 2010 | IBM Research |
| J. F. Reschke, Ed. | |
| greenbytes | |
| J. Whitehead | |
| U.C. Santa Cruz | |
| December 15, 2009 |
Binding Extensions to Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)
draft-ietf-webdav-bind-27
This specification defines bindings, and the BIND method for creating 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. Servers are required to ensure the integrity of any bindings that they allow to be created.
Please send comments to the Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) working group at mailto:w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, which may be joined by sending a message with subject "subscribe" to mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org. Discussions of the WEBDAV working group are archived at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/.
http://www.webdav.org/bind/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-issues.html lists all registered issues since draft 02.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 16, 2010.
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.
This specification extends the WebDAV Distributed Authoring Protocol ([RFC4918]) to enable clients to create new access paths to existing resources. This capability is useful for several reasons:
URIs of WebDAV-compliant resources are hierarchical and correspond to a hierarchy of collections in resource space. The WebDAV Distributed Authoring Protocol makes it possible to organize these resources into hierarchies, placing them into groupings, known as collections, which are more easily browsed and manipulated than a single flat collection. However, hierarchies require categorization decisions that locate resources at a single location in the hierarchy, a drawback when a resource has multiple valid categories. For example, in a hierarchy of vehicle descriptions containing collections for cars and boats, a description of a combination car/boat vehicle could belong in either collection. Ideally, the description should be accessible from both. Allowing clients to create new URIs that access the existing resource lets them put that resource into multiple collections.
Hierarchies also make resource sharing more difficult, since resources that have utility across many collections are still forced into a single collection. For example, the mathematics department at one university might create a collection of information on fractals that contains bindings to some local resources, but also provides access to some resources at other universities. For many reasons, it may be undesirable to make physical copies of the shared resources on the local server: to conserve disk space, to respect copyright constraints, or to make any changes in the shared resources visible automatically. Being able to create new access paths to existing resources in other collections or even on other servers is useful for this sort of case.
The BIND method defined here provides a mechanism for allowing clients to create alternative access paths to existing WebDAV resources. HTTP [RFC2616] and WebDAV [RFC4918] methods are able to work because there are mappings between URIs and resources. A method is addressed to a URI, and the server follows the mapping from that URI to a resource, applying the method to that resource. Multiple URIs may be mapped to the same resource, but until now there has been no way for clients to create additional URIs mapped to existing resources.
BIND lets clients associate a new URI with an existing WebDAV resource, and this URI can then be used to submit requests to the resource. Since URIs of WebDAV resources are hierarchical, and correspond to a hierarchy of collections in resource space, the BIND method also has the effect of adding the resource to a collection. As new URIs are associated with the resource, it appears in additional collections.
A BIND request does not create a new resource, but simply makes available a new URI for submitting requests to an existing resource. The new URI is indistinguishable from any other URI when submitting a request to a resource. Only one round trip is needed to submit a request to the intended target. Servers are required to enforce the integrity of the relationships between the new URIs and the resources associated with them. Consequently, it may be very costly for servers to support BIND requests that cross server boundaries.
This specification is organized as follows. Section 1.1 defines terminology used in the rest of the specification, while Section 2 overviews bindings. Section 3 defines the new properties needed to support multiple bindings to the same resource. Section 4 specifies the BIND method, used to create multiple bindings to the same resource. Section 5 specifies the UNBIND method, used to remove a binding to a resource. Section 6 specifies the REBIND method, used to move a binding to another collection.
The terminology used here follows and extends that in the WebDAV Distributed Authoring Protocol specification [RFC4918].
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This document uses XML DTD fragments ([XML]) as a notational convention, using the rules defined in [RFC4918].
See [RFC4918] for the definitions of "precondition" and "postcondition".
Bindings are part of the state of a collection. They define the internal members of the collection, and the names of those internal members.
Bindings are added and removed by a variety of existing HTTP methods. A method that creates a new resource, such as PUT, COPY, and MKCOL, adds a binding. A method that deletes a resource, such as DELETE, removes a binding. A method that moves a resource (e.g. MOVE) both adds a binding (in the destination collection) and removes a binding (in the source collection). The BIND method introduced here provides a mechanism for adding a second binding to an existing resource. There is no difference between an initial binding added by PUT, COPY, or MKCOL, and additional bindings added with BIND.
It would be very undesirable if one binding could be destroyed as a side effect of operating on the resource through a different binding. In particular, the removal of one binding to a resource (e.g. with a DELETE or a MOVE) of a binding. It is permissible, however, for future method definitions (e.g., a DESTROY method) to have semantics that explicitly remove all bindings and/or immediately reclaim system resources.
Creating a new binding to a collection makes each resource associated with a binding in that collection accessible via a new URI, and thus creates new URI mappings to those resources but no new bindings.
For example, suppose a new binding CollY is created for collection C1 in the figure below. It immediately becomes possible to access resource R1 using the URI /CollY/x.gif and to access resource R2 using the URI /CollY/y.jpg, but no new bindings for these child resources were created. This is because bindings are part of the state of a collection, and associate a URI that is relative to that collection with its target resource. No change to the bindings in Collection C1 is needed to make its children accessible using /CollY/x.gif and /CollY/y.jpg.
Bindings to collections can result in loops ("cycles"), which servers Section 7.1.
However, the 506 (Loop Detected) status code is defined in Section 7.2 for use in contexts where an operation is terminated because a loop was encountered.
Support for loops is Section 4).
Suppose a binding from "Binding-Name" to resource R is to be added to a collection, C. Then if C-MAP is the set of URIs that were mapped to C before the BIND request, then for each URI "C-URI" in C-MAP, the URI "C-URI/Binding-Name" is mapped to resource R following the BIND request.
For example, if a binding from "foo.html" to R is added to a collection C, and if the following URIs are mapped to C:
http://www.example.com/A/1/ http://example.com/A/one/
then the following new mappings to R are introduced:
http://www.example.com/A/1/foo.html http://example.com/A/one/foo.html
Note that if R is a collection, additional URI mappings are created to the descendents of R. Also, note that if a binding is made in collection C to C itself (or to a parent of C), an infinite number of mappings are introduced.
For example, if a binding from "myself" to C is then added to C, the following infinite number of additional mappings to C are introduced:
http://www.example.com/A/1/myself http://www.example.com/A/1/myself/myself ...
and the following infinite number of additional mappings to R are introduced:
http://www.example.com/A/1/myself/foo.html http://www.example.com/A/1/myself/myself/foo.html ...
As defined in [RFC4918], COPY causes the resource identified by the Request-URI to be duplicated, and makes the new resource accessible using the URI specified in the Destination header. Upon successful completion of a COPY, a new binding is created between the last path segment of the Destination header, and the destination resource. The new binding is added to its parent collection, identified by the Destination header minus its final segment.
The following figure shows an example: Suppose that a COPY is issued to URI-3 for resource R (which is also mapped to URI-1 and URI-2), with the Destination header set to URI-X. After successful completion of the COPY operation, resource R is duplicated to create resource R', and a new binding has been created which creates at least the URI mapping between URI-X and the new resource (although other URI mappings may also have been created).
It might be thought that a COPY request with "Depth: 0" on a collection would duplicate its bindings, since bindings are part of the collection's state. This is not the case, however. The definition of Depth in [RFC4918] makes it clear that a "Depth: 0" request does not apply to a collection's members. Consequently, a COPY with "Depth: 0" does not duplicate the bindings contained by the collection.
If a COPY request causes an existing resource to be updated, the bindings to that resource Section 2.3.2 for an example).
If a COPY request would cause a new resource to be created as a copy of an existing resource, and that COPY request has already created a copy of that existing resource, the COPY request instead creates another binding to the previous copy, instead of creating a new resource (see Section 2.3.3 for an example).
As an example of how COPY with Depth infinity would work in the presence of bindings, consider the following collection:
If a COPY with Depth infinity is submitted to /CollX, with destination of /CollA, the outcome of the copy operation is that a copy of the tree is replicated to the target /CollA:
Note that the same would apply for more complex loops.
Given the following collection hierarchy:
A COPY of /CollX with Depth infinity to /CollY will not result in a changed hierarchy, and Resource R3 will be updated with the content of either Resource R1 or Resource R2.
Given the following collection hierarchy:
A COPY of /CollX with Depth infinity to /CollY results in the following collection hierarchy:
When there are multiple bindings to a resource, a DELETE applied to that resource
When DELETE is applied to a collection, it
If a collection supports the UNBIND method (see Section 5), a DELETE of an internal member of a collection [RFC4918] allows a DELETE to be a non-atomic operation, when the DELETE operation is implemented as an UNBIND, the operation is atomic. In particular, a DELETE on a hierarchy of resources is simply the removal of a binding to the collection identified by the Request-URI.
When MOVE is applied to a resource, the other bindings to that resource
If the destination collection of a MOVE request supports the REBIND method (see Section 6), a MOVE of a resource into that collection [RFC4918] allows a MOVE to be a non-atomic operation, when the MOVE operation is implemented as a REBIND, the operation is atomic. In particular, applying a MOVE to a Request-URI and a Destination URI has the effect of removing a binding to a resource (at the Request-URI), and creating a new binding to that resource (at the Destination URI). Even when the Request-URI identifies a collection, the MOVE operation involves only removing one binding to that collection and adding another.
As an example, suppose that a MOVE is issued to URI-3 for resource R below (which is also mapped to URI-1 and URI-2), with the Destination header set to URI-X. After successful completion of the MOVE operation, a new binding has been created which creates the URI mapping between URI-X and resource R. The binding corresponding to the final segment of URI-3 has been removed, which also causes the URI mapping between URI-3 and R to be removed. If resource R were a collection, old URI-3 based mappings to members of R would have been removed, and new URI-X based mappings to members of R would have been created.
>> Before Request:
URI-1 URI-2 URI-3 | | | | | | <---- URI Mappings | | |
>> After Request:
URI-1 URI-2 URI-X | | | | | | <---- URI Mappings | | |
Note that in the presence of collection bindings, a MOVE request can cause the creating of a bind loop.
Consider a the top level collections C1 and C2 with URIs "/CollW/" and "/CollX/". C1 also contains an additional binding named "CollY" to C2:
In this case, the MOVE request below would cause a bind loop:
>> Request:
MOVE /CollW HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com Destination: /CollX/CollZ
If the request succeeded, the resulting state would be:
Consistent with [RFC4918], the value of a dead property [RFC3744], paragraph 2 for a case where the value is independent of path and bindings, and [RFC4918] for a discussion about the live properties DAV:getetag and DAV:getlastmodified, which may behave differently).
It is useful to have some way of determining whether two bindings are to the same resource. Two resources might have identical contents and properties, but not be the same resource (e.g. an update to one resource does not affect the other resource).
The Section 3.1 is a resource identifier, which
The DAV:resource-id property is created, and its value assigned, when the resource is created. The value of DAV:resource-id
Any method that creates a new resource [RFC3253]) must assign a new, unique value to the DAV:resource-id property of the new resource they create.
On the other hand, any method that affects an existing resource must 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 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 resource, must not change the value of the DAV:resource-id property.
The bind feature introduces the properties defined below.
A DAV:allprop PROPFIND request
The DAV:resource-id property is a [RFC4122] or the opaquelocktoken: URI scheme defined in [RFC4918]).
<!ELEMENT resource-id (href)>
The DAV:parent-set property is an
A given collection
<!ELEMENT parent-set (parent)*> <!ELEMENT parent (href, segment)> <!ELEMENT segment (#PCDATA)> <!-- PCDATA value: segment, as defined in
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 [/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 R1, then there would be two entries for C1 in the DAV:parent-set of R1 (i.e. both [/CollX, x.gif] and [/CollX, y.gif] or, alternatively, both [/CollY, x.gif] and [/CollY, y.gif]).
In this case, one possible value for DAV:parent-set property on "/CollX/x.gif" would be:
The BIND method modifies the collection identified by the Request-URI, by adding a new binding from the segment specified in the BIND body to the resource identified in the BIND body.
If a server cannot guarantee the integrity of the binding, the BIND request
By default, if there already is a binding for the specified segment in the collection, the new binding replaces the existing binding. This default binding replacement behavior can be overridden using the Overwrite header defined in [RFC4918].
If a BIND request fails, the server state preceding the request [RFC2616]).
<!ELEMENT bind (segment, href)>
<!ELEMENT bind-response ANY>
>> Request:
BIND /CollY HTTP/1.1 Host: www.example.com Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8" Content-Length:
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 201 Created Location: http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html
The server added a new binding to the collection, "http://www.example.com/CollY", associating "bar.html" with the resource identified by the URI "http://www.example.com/CollX/foo.html". Clients can now use the URI "http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html" to submit requests to that resource.
The UNBIND method modifies the collection identified by the Request-URI, by removing the binding identified by the segment specified in the UNBIND body.
Once a resource is unreachable by any URI mapping, the server
If an UNBIND request fails, the server state preceding the request [RFC2616]).
<!ELEMENT unbind (segment)>
<!ELEMENT unbind-response ANY>
>> Request:
UNBIND /CollX HTTP/1.1 Host: www.example.com Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8" Content-Length:
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
The server removed the binding named "foo.html" from the collection, "http://www.example.com/CollX". A request to the resource named "http://www.example.com/CollX/foo.html" will return a 404 (Not Found) response.
The REBIND method removes a binding to a resource from a collection, and adds a binding to that resource into the collection identified by the Request-URI. The request body specifies the binding to be added (segment) and the old binding to be removed (href). It is effectively an atomic form of a MOVE request, and
If a REBIND request fails, the server state preceding the request [RFC2616]).
<!ELEMENT rebind (segment, href)>
<!ELEMENT rebind-response ANY>
>> Request:
REBIND /CollX HTTP/1.1 Host: www.example.com Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8" Content-Length:
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
The server added a new binding to the collection, "http://www.example.com/CollX", associating "foo.html" with the resource identified by the URI "http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html", and removes the binding 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/CollX/foo.html" to submit requests to that resource, and requests on the URI "http://www.example.com/CollY/bar.html" will fail with a 404 (Not Found) response.
To illustrate the effects of locks and bind loops on a REBIND operation, consider the following collection:
(where L1 is "urn:uuid: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: (<urn:uuid:f92d4fae-7012-11ab-a765-00c0ca1f6bf9>) Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8" Content-Length:
The outcome of the REBIND operation is:
The 208 (Already Reported) status code can be used inside a DAV:propstat response element to avoid enumerating the internal members of multiple bindings to the same collection repeatedly. For each binding to a collection inside the request's scope, only one will be reported with a 200 status, while subsequent DAV:response elements for all other bindings will use the 208 status, and no DAV:response elements for their descendants are included.
Note that the 208 status will only occur for "Depth: infinity" requests, and that it is of particular importance when the multiple collection bindings cause a bind loop as discussed in Section 2.2.
A client can request the DAV:resource-id property in a PROPFIND request to guarantee that they can accurately reconstruct the binding structure of a collection with multiple bindings to a single resource.
For backward compatibility with clients not aware of the 208 status code appearing in multistatus response bodies, it Section 8.2). Instead, a 506 status should be returned when a binding loop is discovered. This allows the server to return the 506 as the top level return status, if it discovers it before it started the response, or in the middle of a multistatus, if it discovers it in the middle of streaming out a multistatus response.
For example, consider a PROPFIND request on /Coll (bound to collection C), where the members of /Coll are /Coll/Foo (bound to resource R) and /Coll/Bar (bound to collection C).
>> Request:
PROPFIND /Coll/ HTTP/1.1 Host: www.example.com Depth: infinity DAV: bind Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8" Content-Length:
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 207 Multi-Status Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8" Content-Length:
In this example, the client isn't aware of the 208 status code introduced by this specification. As the "Depth: infinity" PROPFIND request would cause a loop condition, the whole request is rejected with a 506 status.
>> Request:
PROPFIND /Coll/ HTTP/1.1 Host: www.example.com Depth: infinity Content-Type: application/xml; charset="utf-8" Content-Length:
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 506 Loop Detected
The 506 (Loop Detected) status code indicates that the server terminated an operation because it encountered an infinite loop while processing a request with "Depth: infinity". This status indicates that the entire operation failed.
If the server supports bindings, it [RFC4918]) from an OPTIONS request on any resource implemented by that server. A value of "bind" in the "DAV" header
Clients Section 7.1.
Locking is an optional feature of WebDAV ([RFC4918]). The base WebDAV specification and this protocol extension have been designed in parallel, making sure that all features of WebDAV can be implemented on a server that implements this protocol as well.
Unfortunately, WebDAV uses the term "lock-root" inconsistently. It is introduced in [RFC4918], point 2, as:
On the other hand, [RFC4918] states:
Servers that implement both WebDAV locking and support for multiple bindings [RFC4918]), are said to be "protected" by the lock.
As defined in the introduction to [RFC4918], write operations that modify the state of a locked resource require that the lock token is submitted with the request. Consistent with WebDAV, the state of the resource consists of the content ("any variant"), dead properties, lockable live properties (item 1), plus, for a collection, all its bindings (item 2). Note that this, by definition, does not depend on the request URI to which the write operation is applied (the locked state is a property of the resource, not its URI).
However, the lock root is the URI through which the lock was requested. Thus, the protection defined in item 3 of the list does not apply to additional URIs that may be mapped to the same resource due to the existence of multiple bindings.
Consider a root collection "/", containing the two collections C1 and C2, named "/CollX" and "/CollY", and a child resource R, bound to C1 as "/CollX/test" and bound to C2 as "/CollY/test":
Given a host name of "www.example.com", applying a depth-zero write lock to "/CollX/test" will lock the resource R, and the lock-root of this lock will be "http://www.example.com/CollX/test".
Thus the following operations will require that the associated lock token is submitted with the "If" request header ([RFC4918]):
The following operations will not require submission of the lock token:
Note that despite the lock root being "http://www.example.com/CollX/test", an UNLOCK request can be addressed through any URI mapped to resource R, as UNLOCK operates on the resource identified by the request URI, not that URI (see [RFC4918]).
Note that the WebDAV Access Control Protocol has been designed for compatibility with systems that allow multiple URIs to map to the same resource (see [RFC3744]):
Furthermore, note that BIND and REBIND behave the same as MOVE with respect to the DAV:acl property (see [RFC3744]).
Servers that implement Workspaces ([RFC3253]) and Version Controlled Collections ([RFC3253]) already need to implement BIND-like behavior in order to handle UPDATE and UNCHECKOUT semantics.
Consider a workspace "/ws1/", containing the version-controlled, checked-out collections C1 and C2, named "/ws1/CollX" and "/ws1/CollY", and a version-controlled resource R, bound to C1 as "/ws1/CollX/test":
Moving "/ws1/CollX/test" into "/ws1/CollY", checking in C2, but undoing the checkout on C1 will undo part of the MOVE request, thus restoring the binding from C1 to R, but keeping the new binding from C2 to R:
>> Request:
MOVE /ws1/CollX/test HTTP/1.1 Host: www.example.com Destination: /ws1/CollY/test
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 204 No Content
>> Request:
CHECKIN /ws1/CollY/ HTTP/1.1 Host: www.example.com
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 201 Created Cache-Control: no-cache Location: http://repo.example.com/his/17/ver/42
>> Request:
UNCHECKOUT /ws1/CollX/ HTTP/1.1 Host: www.example.com
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Cache-Control: no-cache
As a result, both C1 and C2 would have a binding to R:
The MOVE semantics defined in [RFC3253] already require that "/ws1/CollX/test" and "/ws1/CollY/test" will have the same version history (as exposed in the DAV:version-history property). Furthermore, the UNCHECKOUT semantics (which in this case is similar to UPDATE, see [RFC3253]) require:
Thus, "/ws1/CollX/test" and "/ws1/CollY/test" will be bindings to the same resource R, and have identical DAV:resource-id properties.
This section is provided to make WebDAV implementors aware of the security implications of this protocol.
All of the security considerations of HTTP/1.1 ([RFC2616]) and the WebDAV Distributed Authoring Protocol specification ([RFC4918]) also apply to this protocol specification. In addition, bindings introduce several new security concerns and increase the risk of some existing threats. These issues are detailed below.
In a context where cross-server bindings are supported, creating bindings on a trusted server may make it possible for a hostile agent to induce users to send private information to a target on a different server.
Although bind loops were already possible in HTTP 1.1, the introduction of the BIND method creates a new avenue for clients to create loops accidentally or maliciously. If the binding and its target are on the same server, the server may be able to detect BIND requests that would create loops. Servers are required to detect loops that are caused by bindings to collections during the processing of any requests with "Depth: infinity".
Denial of service attacks were already possible by posting URIs that were intended for limited use at heavily used Web sites. The introduction of BIND creates a new avenue for similar denial of service attacks. If cross-server bindings are supported, clients can now create bindings at heavily used sites to target locations that were not designed for heavy usage.
If the DAV:parent-set property is maintained on a resource, the owners of the bindings risk revealing private locations. The directory structures where bindings are located are available to anyone who has access to the DAV:parent-set property on the resource. Moving a binding may reveal its new location to anyone with access to DAV:parent-set on its resource.
If the server maintains the DAV:parent-set property in response to bindings created in other administrative domains, it is exposed to hostile attempts to make it devote resources to adding bindings to the list.
All internationalization considerations mentioned in [RFC4918] also apply to this document.
Section 7 defines the HTTP status codes 208 (Already Reported) and 506 (Loop Detected), to be added to the registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes.
This document is the collaborative product of the authors and Tyson Chihaya, Jim Davis, Chuck Fay and Judith Slein. It has benefited from thoughtful discussion by Jim Amsden, Peter Carlson, Steve Carter, Ken Coar, Ellis Cohen, Dan Connolly, Bruce Cragun, Cyrus Daboo, Spencer Dawkins, Mark Day, Werner Donne, Rajiv Dulepet, David Durand, Lisa Dusseault, Stefan Eissing, Roy Fielding, Yaron Goland, Joe Hildebrand, Fred Hitt, Alex Hopmann, James Hunt, Marcus Jager, Chris Kaler, Manoj Kasichainula, Rohit Khare, Brian Korver, Daniel LaLiberte, Steve Martin, Larry Masinter, Jeff McAffer, Alexey Melnikov, Surendra Koduru Reddy, Max Rible, Sam Ruby, Bradley Sergeant, Nick Shelness, John Stracke, John Tigue, John Turner, Kevin Wiggen, and other members of the concluded WebDAV working group.
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. |
| [RFC3986] | Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005. |
| [RFC4918] | Dusseault, L., "HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)", RFC 4918, June 2007. |
| [RFC2616] | Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. |
| [XML] | Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Maler, E. and F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition)", W3C REC-xml-20081126, November 2008. |
| [RFC3253] | Clemm, G., Amsden, J., Ellison, T., Kaler, C. and J. Whitehead, "Versioning Extensions to WebDAV (Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning)", RFC 3253, March 2002. |
| [RFC3744] | Clemm, G., Reschke, J. F., Sedlar, E. and J. Whitehead, "Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) Access Control Protocol", RFC 3744, May 2004. |
| [RFC4122] | Leach, P., Mealling, M. and R. Salz, "A Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace", RFC 4122, July 2005. |
Add and resolve issues "2.3_COPY_SHARED_BINDINGS" and "2.3_MULTIPLE_COPY". Add issue "5.1_LOOP_STATUS" and proposed resolution, but keep it open. Add issues "ED_references" and "4_507_status". Started work on index. Rename document to "Binding Extensions to Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)". Rename "References" to "Normative References". Close issue "ED_references". Close issue "4_507_status".
Add and close issues "9.2_redirect_loops", "ED_authors" and "ED_updates". Add section about capability discovery (DAV header). Close issues "5.1_LOOP_STATUS". Add and resolve new issue "5.1_506_STATUS_STREAMING". Update XML spec reference. Add issue "locking" and resolve as invalid.
Add and close issues "6_precondition_binding_allowed" and "6_lock_behaviour". Add mailing list and issues list pointers to front.
Editorial fixes. Add and resolve issues "1.3_error_negotiation", "2.5_language" and "7.1.1_add_resource_id". Add historical issue "4_LOCK_BEHAVIOR" and it's resolution for better tracking.
Rewrite Editorial Note. Open and resolve issues "2.6_identical", "specify_safeness_and_idempotence" and "ED_rfc2026_ref".
Add more index items (no change tracking). Add and resolve issues "2.3_copy_to_same", "bind_properties", "bind_vs_ACL", "6_rebind_intro" and "rfc2396bis" (actually an action item). Fix XML DTD fragment in section 3.3. Make spelling of "Request-URI" consistent.
Resolved editorial issues raised by Jim Whitehead in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/0129.html. Add and resolve issues "atomicity", "2_allow_destroy", "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", "2.6_resource-id_vs_versions", "3.2_example" and "6_rebind_premissions". Add issue "2.6_when_do_ids_change". Re-open and resolve "6_rebind_intro".
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".
Resolve action item "3.1_uuids". Add and resolve issue "2.7_unlock_vs_bindings". Revisit issue "2.6_bindings_vs_properties", and remove the part of the sentence that speaks about live properties. Update "rfc2396bis" references to "RFC3986". Add issue "9_ns_op_and_acl" and add potential resolution. Align artwork where applicable (new xml2rfc1.29rc2 feature).
Updated [draft-mealling-uuid-urn] to [RFC4122]. Add statement about live properties in Section 2.6.
Updated Author's address. Uppercase "Section" when referring to other documents.
Updating from RFC2518 to RFC2518bis:
Update [draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518-bis] to draft 14. Update one incorrect section reference. Remove Section "Rationale for Distinguishing Bindings from URI Mappings" as [draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518-bis] now uses the proper definition of collection state. Examples use application/xml instead of text/xml MIME type.
Fix IANA section (there are no IANA considerations).
Update [draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518-bis] to draft 15. Update [XML] to 4th edition.
Markup ASCII art for box recognition (doesn't affect ASCII version).
Identify Julian Reschke as Editor.
Fix typo in RFC2119 keywords section (sorry!).
Update [draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518-bis] to draft 17.
Add and resolve issue "rfc2518bis-lock-root".
Add and resolve issue "iana-vs-http-status".
Update rfc2518bis reference to draft 18 (note that the bug reported in http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=251 is still present).
Update: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis replaced by RFC4918.
Add and resolve issues "2.1.1-bind-loops", "2.1.1-cycles", "2.5-move-creating-cycles", "3.1-clarify-resource-id" and "4-precondition-language".
Use "urn:uuid:" instead of "opaquelocktoken:" scheme in examples. Replace RFC2518bis issue link by pointer to RFC Errata Page.
Add issues "relation-to-deltav" and "status-codes".
Resolve issues "relation-to-deltav" and "status-codes".
Add correct content length values to examples (no change bars).
Set "Intended Status" to "Experimental".
Update XML reference to "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition)".
Remove surplus white space from one example.
Fix typo: "DAV:binding-set" -> "DAV:parent-set".
Add and resolve issues "clarify-alternate-uri", "def-integrity", "ex-copy-multiple-update", "ex-copy-graph", and "ex-live-property".
Add and resolve issues "clarify-clarify", "sec-cons-references", "should-not-update-4918", "should-update-2616", and "webdav-wg-gone".
Add and resolve issue "locking-example".
Add and resolve issues "