|WEBDAV Working Group||J. Whitehead|
|Internet-Draft||U.C. Santa Cruz|
|Intended status: Standards Track||J. Reschke, Editor|
|Expires: June 2004||greenbytes|
Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) Ordered Collections Protocol
Note: a later version of this document has been published as RFC3648.
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each 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 becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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”.
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire in June 2004.
Copyright © The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This specification extends the I ↓
WebDAV Distributed Authoring Protocol to support server-side ordering of collection members. Of particular interest are orderings that are not based on property values, and so cannot be achieved using a search protocol's ordering option and cannot be maintained automatically by the server. Protocol elements are defined to let clients specify the position in the ordering of each collection member, as well as the semantics governing the ordering.
Distribution of this document is unlimited. Please send comments to the Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) working group at firstname.lastname@example.org, which may be joined by sending a message with subject "subscribe" to email@example.com.
Discussions of the WEBDAV working group are archived at URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/.
|I typo (type: edit, status: editor)|
|firstname.lastname@example.org||2003-10-13||(umbrella issue for typos)|
|Associated changes in this document: 12.|
|I rfc-editor (type: edit, status: editor)|
|email@example.com||2003-12-03||(umbrella issue for changes made by RFC Editor)|
|Associated changes in this document: <#rfc.change.rfc-editor.1>, <#rfc.change.rfc-editor.2>, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4.1.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.1, 5.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.2, 5.2, 5.2, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.1, 6.3, 6.3, 6.3, 6.3, 6.3, 6.3, 6.3, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7.2, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 11.1, 12, 12, 12, 12.|
Since this document describes a set of extensions to the WebDAV Distributed Authoring Protocol [RFC2518], ↑↓ itself an extension to the HTTP/1.1 protocol, the augmented BNF used here to describe protocol elements is exactly the same as described in Section 2.1 of HTTP [RFC2616]. Since this augmented BNF uses the basic production rules provided in Section 2.2 of HTTP, these rules apply to this document as well.
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 as a purely notational convention. WebDAV request and response bodies can not be validated due to the specific extensibility rules defined in section 23 of [RFC2518] and due to the fact that all XML elements defined by this specification use the XML namespace name "DAV:". In particular:
This specification builds on the collection infrastructure provided by the WebDAV Distributed Authoring Protocol, adding support for the server-side ordering of collection members.
There are many scenarios ↑↓
where it is useful to impose an ordering on a collection at the server, such as expressing a recommended access order, or a revision history order. The members of a collection might represent the pages of a book, which need to be presented in order if they are to make ↑↓ sense. Or an instructor might create a collection of course ↑↓ readings, which she wants to be displayed in the order they are to be read.
Orderings may be based on property values, but this is not always the case. The resources in the collection may not have properties that can be used to support the desired ordering. Orderings based on properties can be obtained using a search protocol's ordering option, but orderings not based on properties cannot. These orderings generally need to be maintained by a human user.
The ordering protocol defined here focuses on support for such human-maintained orderings. Its protocol elements allow clients to specify the position of each collection member in the collection's ordering, as well as the semantics governing the ↑↓
ordering. The protocol is designed to allow ↑↓ support to be added in the future for orderings that are maintained automatically by the server.
The remainder of this document is structured as follows: Section 3 defines terminology that will be used throughout the specification. Section 4 provides an overview of ordered collections. Section 5 describes how to create an ordered collection, and Section 6 discusses how to set a member's position in the ordering of a collection. Section 7 explains how to change a collection ordering. Section 8 discusses listing the members of an ordered collection. Section 9 discusses the impact on version-controlled collections (as defined in [RFC3253]↑↓. Section 10 describes capability discovery. ↑↓
Section 11 through Section 13 discuss security, internationalization, and IANA considerations. The remaining sections provide supporting information.
This document uses the terms "precondition", "postcondition" and "protected property" as defined in [RFC3253]. Servers MUST report pre-/postcondition failures as described in section 1.6 of this document.
If a collection is ↑↓
unordered, the client cannot depend on the repeatability of the ordering of results from a PROPFIND request. By specifying an ordering for a collection, a client requires the server to follow that ordering whenever it responds to a PROPFIND request on that collection.
Server-side orderings may be client-maintained or server-maintained. For client-maintained orderings, a client must specify the ordering position of each of the collection's members, either when the member is added to the collection (using the Position header (Section 6)) or later (using the ORDERPATCH (Section 7) method). For server-maintained orderings, the server automatically positions each of the collection's members according to the ordering semantics. This specification supports only client-maintained orderings, but is designed to allow ↑↓
future extension to server-maintained orderings.
A collection that supports ordering is not required to be ordered.
If a collection is ordered, each of its internal member URIs MUST ↑↓
be in the ordering exactly once, and the ordering MUST NOT include any ↑↓ URI that is not an internal member of the collection. The server is responsible for enforcing these constraints on orderings. The server MUST remove an internal member URI from the ordering when it is removed from the collection. Removing an internal member MUST NOT affect the ordering of the remaining internal members. The server MUST add an internal member URI to the ordering when it is added to the collection.
Only one ordering can be attached to any collection. Multiple orderings of the same resources can be achieved by creating multiple collections referencing those resources, and attaching a different ordering to each collection.
An ordering is considered to be part of the state of a collection resource. Consequently, the ordering is the same no matter which URI is used to access the collection and is protected by locks or access control constraints on the collection.
A DAV:allprop PROPFIND request SHOULD NOT return any of the properties defined in this document.
Indicates whether the collection is ordered and, if so, uniquely identifies the semantics of the ordering↑↓ being used. ↑↓ May also point to an explanation of the semantics in human ↑↓ and / or machine-readable form. At a minimum, this allows human users who add members to the collection to understand where to position them in the ordering. This property cannot be set using PROPPATCH. Its value can only be set by including the Ordering-Type header with a MKCOL request or by submitting an ORDERPATCH request.
Ordering types are identified by URIs that uniquely identify the semantics of the collection's ordering. The following two URIs are predefined: ↑↓
An ordering-aware client interacting with an ordering-unaware server (e.g., one that is implemented only according to [RFC2518]) SHOULD assume that ↑↓
if a collection does not have the DAV:ordering-type property, the collection is unordered.
<!ELEMENT ordering-type (href) >
When a collection is created, the client MAY request that it be ordered and specify the semantics of the ordering by using the new Ordering-Type header (defined below) with a MKCOL request.
For collections that are ordered, the client SHOULD identify the semantics of the ordering with a URI in the Ordering-Type header, although the client MAY simply set the header value to DAV:custom to indicate that the collection is ordered but the semantics of the ordering are not being advertised. Setting the value to a URI that identifies the ordering semantics provides the information a human user or software package needs to insert new collection members into the ordering intelligently. Although the URI in the Ordering-Type header MAY point to a resource that contains a definition of the semantics of the ordering, clients SHOULD NOT access that ↑↓
resource, in order to avoid overburdening its server. A value of DAV:unordered in the Ordering-Type header indicates that the client wants the collection to be unordered. If the Ordering-Type header is not present, the collection will be unordered.
Ordering-Type = "Ordering-Type" ":" absoluteURI ; absoluteURI: see RFC2396, section 3
MKCOL /theNorth/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Ordering-Type: http://example.org/orderings/compass.html
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
In this example↑↓ a new↑↓
, ordered collection was created. Its DAV:ordering-type property has ↑↓ as its value the URI from the Ordering-Type ↑↓ header, http://example.org/orderings/compass.html. In this case, the URI identifies the semantics governing a client-maintained ordering. As new members are added to the collection, clients or end users can use the semantics to determine where to position the new members in the ordering.
When a new member is added to a collection with a client-maintained ordering (for example, with PUT, COPY, or MKCOL), its position in the ordering can be set with the new Position header. The Position header allows the client to specify that an internal member URI should be first in the collection's ordering, last in the collection's ordering, immediately before some other internal member URI in the collection's ordering, or immediately after some other internal member URI in the collection's ordering.
If the Position request header is not used when adding a member to an ordered collection, then:
Position = "Position" ":" ("first" | "last" | (("before" | "after") segment))
COPY /~user/dav/spec08.html HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Destination: http://example.org/~slein/dav/spec08.html Position: after requirements.html
HTTP/1.1 201 Created
This request resulted in the creation of a new resource at example.org/~slein/dav/spec08.html. The Position header in this example caused the server to set its position in the ordering of the /~slein/dav/ collection immediately after requirements.html.
MOVE /i-d/draft-webdav-prot-08.txt HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Destination: http://example.org/~user/dav/draft-webdav-prot-08.txt Position: first
HTTP/1.1 409 Conflict Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8" Content-Length: xxxx <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <D:error xmlns:D="DAV:"> <D:collection-must-be-ordered/> </D:error>
In this case, the server returned a 409 (Conflict) status code because the /~user/dav/ collection is an unordered collection. Consequently, the server was unable to satisfy the Position header.
The server MUST apply the changes in the order they appear in the order XML element. The server MUST either apply all the changes or apply none of them. If any error occurs during processing, all executed changes MUST be undone and a proper error result returned.
If an ORDERPATCH request changes the ordering semantics, but does not completely specify the order of the collection members, the server MUST assign a position in the ordering to each collection member for which a position was not specified. These server-assigned positions MUST ↑↓
all follow the last one specified by the client. The result is that all members for which the client specified a position are at the beginning of the ordering, followed by any members for which the server assigned positions. Note that the ordering of the server-assigned positions is not defined by this document, therefore servers can use whatever rule seems reasonable (for instance, alphabetically or by creation date).
If an ORDERPATCH request does not change the ordering semantics, any member positions not specified in the request MUST remain unchanged.
If an ORDERPATCH request fails, the server state preceding the request MUST be restored.
<!ELEMENT orderpatch (ordering-type?, order-member*) > <!ELEMENT order-member (segment, position) > <!ELEMENT position (first | last | before | after)> <!ELEMENT segment (#PCDATA)> <!ELEMENT first EMPTY > <!ELEMENT last EMPTY > <!ELEMENT before segment > <!ELEMENT after segment >
<!ELEMENT orderpatch-response ANY>
Consider an ordered collection /coll-1, with bindings ordered as follows:
three.html four.html one.html two.html
ORDERPATCH /coll-1/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8" Content-Length: xxx <?xml version="1.0" ?> <d:orderpatch xmlns:d="DAV:"> <d:ordering-type> <d:href>http://example.org/inorder.ord</d:href> </d:ordering-type> <d:order-member> <d:segment>two.html</d:segment> <d:position><d:first/></d:position> </d:order-member> <d:order-member> <d:segment>one.html</d:segment> <d:position><d:first/></d:position> </d:order-member> <d:order-member> <d:segment>three.html</d:segment> <d:position><d:last/></d:position> </d:order-member> <d:order-member> <d:segment>four.html</d:segment> <d:position><d:last/></d:position> </d:order-member> </d:orderpatch>
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
In this example, after the request has been processed, the collection's ordering semantics are identified by the URI http://example.org/inorder.ord. The value of the collection's DAV:ordering-type property has been set to this URI. The request also contains instructions for changing the positions of the collection's internal member URIs in the ordering to comply with the new ordering semantics. As the DAV:order-member elements are required to be processed in the order they appear in the request, two.html is moved to the beginning of the ordering, and then one.html is moved to the beginning of the ordering. Then three.html is moved to the end of the ordering, and finally four.html is moved to the end of the ordering. After the request has been processed, the collection's ordering is as follows:
one.html two.html three.html four.html
Consider a collection /coll-1/ with members ordered as follows:
nunavut.map nunavut.img baffin.map baffin.desc baffin.img iqaluit.map nunavut.desc iqaluit.img iqaluit.desc
ORDERPATCH /coll-1/ HTTP/1.1 Host: www.nunanet.com Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8" Content-Length: xxx <?xml version="1.0" ?> <d:orderpatch xmlns:d="DAV:"> <d:order-member> <d:segment>nunavut.desc</d:segment> <d:position> <d:after> <d:segment>nunavut.map</d:segment> </d:after> </d:position> </d:order-member> <d:order-member> <d:segment>iqaluit.map</d:segment> <d:position> <d:after> <d:segment>pangnirtung.img</d:segment> </d:after> </d:position> </d:order-member> </d:orderpatch>
HTTP/1.1 207 Multi-Status Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8" Content-Length: xxx <?xml version="1.0" ?> <d:multistatus xmlns:d="DAV:"> <d:response> <d:href>http://www.nunanet.com/coll-1/iqaluit.map</d:href> <d:status>HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden</d:status> <d:responsedescription> <d:error><d:segment-must-identify-member/></d:error> pangnirtung.img is not a collection member. </d:responsedescription> </d:response> </d:multistatus>
In this example, the client attempted to position iqaluit.map after a URI that is not an internal member of the collection /coll-1/. The server responded to this client error with a 403 (Forbidden) status code, indicating the failed precondition DAV:segment-must-identify-member. Because ORDERPATCH is an atomic method, the request to reposition nunavut.desc (which would otherwise have succeeded) failed as well, but ↑↓
doesn't need to be expressed in the multistatus response body.
A PROPFIND request is used to retrieve a listing of the members of an ordered collection, just as it is used to retrieve a listing of the members of an unordered collection.
However, when responding to a PROPFIND on an ordered collection, the server MUST order the response elements according to the ordering defined on the collection. If a collection is unordered, the client cannot depend on the repeatability of the ordering of results from a PROPFIND request.
In a response to a PROPFIND with Depth: infinity, members of different collections may be interleaved. That is, the server is not required to do a breadth-first traversal. The only requirement is that the members of any ordered collection appear in the order defined for ↑↓
the collection. Thus↑↓ for the hierarchy illustrated in the following figure, where collection A is an ordered collection with the ordering B C D,
A /|\ / | \ B C D / /|\ E F G H
it would be acceptable for the server to return response elements in the order A B E C F G H D or "A B E C H G F D" as well (if C is unordered).↑↓
. In this response, B, C, and D appear in the correct order, separated by members of other collections. Clients can use a series of Depth: 1 PROPFIND requests to avoid the complexity of processing Depth: infinity responses based on depth-first traversals.
Suppose a PROPFIND request is submitted to /MyColl/, which has its members ordered as follows.
/MyColl/ lakehazen.html siorapaluk.html iqaluit.html newyork.html
PROPFIND /MyColl/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org Depth: 1 Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8" Content-Length: xxxx <?xml version="1.0" ?> <D:propfind xmlns:D="DAV:"> <D:prop xmlns:J="http://example.org/jsprops/"> <D:ordering-type/> <D:resourcetype/> <J:latitude/> </D:prop> </D:propfind>
HTTP/1.1 207 Multi-Status Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8" Content-Length: xxxx <?xml version="1.0" ?> <D:multistatus xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:J="http://example.org/jsprops/"> <D:response> <D:href>http://example.org/MyColl/</D:href> <D:propstat> <D:prop> <D:ordering-type> <D:href>DAV:custom</D:href> </D:ordering-type> <D:resourcetype><D:collection/></D:resourcetype> </D:prop> <D:status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</D:status> </D:propstat> <D:propstat> <D:prop> <J:latitude/> </D:prop> <D:status>HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found</D:status> </D:propstat> </D:response> <D:response> <D:href>http://example.org/MyColl/lakehazen.html</D:href> <D:propstat> <D:prop> <D:resourcetype/> <J:latitude>82N</J:latitude> </D:prop> <D:status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</D:status> </D:propstat> <D:propstat> <D:prop> <D:ordering-type/> </D:prop> <D:status>HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found</D:status> </D:propstat> </D:response> <D:response> <D:href >http://example.org/MyColl/siorapaluk.html</D:href> <D:propstat> <D:prop> <D:resourcetype/> <J:latitude>78N</J:latitude> </D:prop> <D:status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</D:status> </D:propstat> <D:propstat> <D:prop> <D:ordering-type/> </D:prop> <D:status>HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found</D:status> </D:propstat> </D:response> <D:response> <D:href>http://example.org/MyColl/iqaluit.html</D:href> <D:propstat> <D:prop> <D:resourcetype/> <J:latitude>62N</J:latitude> </D:prop> <D:status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</D:status> </D:propstat> <D:propstat> <D:prop> <D:ordering-type/> </D:prop> <D:status>HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found</D:status> </D:propstat> </D:response> <D:response> <D:href>http://example.org/MyColl/newyork.html</D:href> <D:propstat> <D:prop> <D:resourcetype/> <J:latitude>45N</J:latitude> </D:prop> <D:status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</D:status> <D:propstat> <D:prop> <D:ordering-type/> </D:prop> <D:status>HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found</D:status> </D:propstat> </D:propstat> </D:response> </D:multistatus>
In this example, the server responded with a list of the collection members in the order defined for the collection.
The Versioning Extensions to WebDAV [RFC3253] introduce the concept of versioned collections, recording both the dead properties and the set of internal version-controlled bindings. This section defines how this feature interacts with ordered collections.
This specification considers both the ordering type (DAV:ordering-type property) and the ordering of collection members to be part of the state of a collection. Therefore↑↓ both MUST be recorded upon CHECKIN or VERSION-CONTROL, and both MUST be restored upon CHECKOUT, UNCHECKOUT or UPDATE (where for compatibility with RFC↑↓3253, only the ordering of version-controlled members needs to be maintained).
For ordered collections, the DAV:version-controlled-binding elements MUST appear in the ordering defined for the checked-in ordered collection.
The DAV:ordering-type property records the DAV:ordering-type property of the checked-in ordered collection.
Sections 9.1 and 15 of [RFC2518] describe the use of compliance classes with the DAV header in responses to OPTIONS, ↑↓
to indicate which parts of the Web Distributed Authoring protocols the resource supports. This specification defines an OPTIONAL extension to [RFC2518]. It defines a new compliance class, called ordered-collections, for use with the DAV header in responses to OPTIONS requests. If a collection resource does support ordering, its response to an OPTIONS request may indicate that it does, by listing the new ORDERPATCH method as one it supports, and by listing the new ordered-collections compliance class in the DAV header.
When responding to an OPTIONS request, only a collection or a null resource can include ordered-collections in the value of the DAV header. By including ordered-collections, the resource indicates that its internal member URIs can be ordered. It implies nothing about whether any collections identified by its internal member URIs can be ordered.
Furthermore, RFC 3253 [RFC3253] introduces the live properties DAV:supported-method-set (section 3.1.3) and DAV:supported-live-property-set (section 3.1.4). Servers MUST support these properties as defined in RFC 3253.
OPTIONS /somecollection/ HTTP/1.1 Host: example.org
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Allow: OPTIONS, GET, HEAD, POST, PUT, DELETE, TRACE, COPY, MOVE Allow: MKCOL, PROPFIND, PROPPATCH, LOCK, UNLOCK, ORDERPATCH DAV: 1, 2, ordered-collections
The DAV header in the response indicates that the resource /somecollection/ is level 1 and level 2 compliant, as defined in [RFC2518]. In addition, /somecollection/ supports ordering. The Allow header indicates that ORDERPATCH requests can be submitted to /somecollection/.
PROPFIND /somecollection HTTP/1.1 Depth: 0 Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8" Content-Length: xxx <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?> <propfind xmlns="DAV:"> <prop> <supported-live-property-set/> <supported-method-set/> </prop> </propfind>
HTTP/1.1 207 Multi-Status Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8" Content-Length: xxx <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <multistatus xmlns="DAV:"> <response> <href>http://example.org/somecollection</href> <propstat> <prop> <supported-live-property-set> <supported-live-property> <prop><ordering-type/></prop> </supported-live-property> <!-- ... other live properties omitted for brevity ... --> </supported-live-property-set> <supported-method-set> <supported-method name="COPY" /> <supported-method name="DELETE" /> <supported-method name="GET" /> <supported-method name="HEAD" /> <supported-method name="LOCK" /> <supported-method name="MKCOL" /> <supported-method name="MOVE" /> <supported-method name="OPTIONS" /> <supported-method name="ORDERPATCH" /> <supported-method name="POST" /> <supported-method name="PROPFIND" /> <supported-method name="PROPPATCH" /> <supported-method name="PUT" /> <supported-method name="TRACE" /> <supported-method name="UNLOCK" /> </supported-method-set> </prop> <status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</status> </propstat> </response> </multistatus>
Note that actual responses MUST contain a complete list of supported live properties.
|I iesg-discuss-11-webdav-applications (type: change, status: closed)|
|firstname.lastname@example.org||(Ned Freed) Unless applications have gotten a lot smarter while I wasn't looking, this section doesn't make them aware of anything. Suggest changing "applications" to "implementers".|
|Associated changes in this document: 11.|
This section is provided to make WebDAV
applications aware of the security implications of this protocol.
All of the security considerations of HTTP/1.1 and the WebDAV Distributed Authoring Protocol specification also apply to this protocol specification. In addition, ordered collections introduce a new security concern. This issue is detailed here.
There may be some risk of denial of service at sites that are advertised in the DAV:ordering-type property of collections. However, it is anticipated that widely-deployed applications will use hard-coded values for frequently-used ordering semantics rather than looking up the semantics at the location specified by DAV:ordering-type. This risk will be further reduced if clients observe the recommendation of Section 5.1 that ↑↓
they not send requests to the URI in DAV:ordering-type.
This specification follows the practices of [RFC2518] ↑↓
in encoding all human-readable content using [XML] and in the treatment of names. Consequently, this specification complies with the IETF Character Set Policy [RFC2277].
WebDAV applications MUST support the character set tagging, character set encoding, and the language tagging functionality of the XML specification. This constraint ensures that the human-readable content of this specification complies with [RFC2277].
As in [RFC2518], names in this specification fall into three categories: names of protocol elements such as methods and headers, names of XML elements, and names of properties. ↑↓
Naming of protocol elements follows the precedent of HTTP↑↓ , using English names encoded in USASCII for methods and headers. The names of XML elements used in this specification are English names encoded in UTF-8.
For error reporting, [RFC2518] follows the convention of HTTP/1.1 status codes, including with each status code a short, English description of the code (e.g., 423 Locked). Internationalized applications will ignore this message, and display an appropriate message in the user's language and character set.
This specification introduces no new strings that are displayed to users as part of normal, error-free operation of the protocol.
This document has benefited from significant contributions from Geoff Clemm, Jason Crawford, Jim Davis, Chuck Fay and Judith Slein.
This document has benefited from thoughtful discussion by Jim Amsden, Steve Carter, Tyson Chihaya, Ken Coar, Ellis Cohen, Bruce Cragun, Spencer Dawkins, Mark Day, Rajiv Dulepet, David Durand, Lisa Dusseault, Roy Fielding, Yaron Goland, Fred Hitt, Alex Hopmann, Marcus Jager, Chris Kaler, Manoj Kasichainula, Rohit Khare, Daniel LaLiberte, Steve Martin, Larry Masinter, Jeff McAffer, Surendra Koduru Reddy, Max Rible, Sam Ruby, Bradley Sergeant, Nick Shelness, John Stracke, John Tigue, John Turner, Kevin Wiggen, and others.
|[RFC2119]||Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels”, BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.|
|[RFC2277]||Alvestrand, H., “IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages”, BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.|
|[RFC2396]||Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, “Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax”, RFC 2396, August 1998.|
|[RFC2518]||Goland, Y., Whitehead, E., Faizi, A., Carter, S., and D. Jensen, “HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring -- WEBDAV”, RFC 2518, February 1999.|
|[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.|
|[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.|
|[XML]||Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., and E. Maler, “Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (2nd ed)”, W3C REC-xml, October 2000, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006>.|
UC Santa Cruz, Dept. of Computer Science
1156 High Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95064
Julian F. Reschke
Muenster, NW 48159
Phone: +49 251 2807760
Fax: +49 251 2807761
<!ELEMENT orderpatch (ordering-type?, order-member*) > <!ELEMENT order-member (segment, position) > <!ELEMENT ordering-type (href) > <!ELEMENT position (first | last | before | after)> <!ELEMENT first EMPTY > <!ELEMENT last EMPTY > <!ELEMENT before segment > <!ELEMENT after segment > <!ELEMENT segment (#PCDATA)>
Updated contact information for all previous authors.
Specify charset when using text/xml media type.
Made sure artwork fits into 72 columns.
Removed "Public" header from OPTIONS example.
Added Julian Reschke to list of authors.
Fixed broken XML in PROPFIND example and added DAV:orderingtype to list of requested properties.
Added support for DAV:supported-live-property-set and DAV:supported-method-set as mandatory features.
Updated change log to refer to expired draft version as "December 1999" version.
Started rewrite marshalling in RFC3253-style and added precondition and postcondition definitions.
On his request, removed Geoff Clemm's name from the author list (moved to Acknowledgments).
Renamed "References" to "Normative References".
Removed reference to "MKREF" method.
Added a set of issues regarding marshalling.
Changed host names to use proper "example" domain names (no change tracking). Fixed host/destination header conflicts. Fixed "allow" header (multiline). Removed irrelevant response headers. Abbreviated some URIs (no change tracking).
Removed Jim Davis and Chuck Fay from the author list (and added them to the Acknowledgements section).
Updated section on setting the position when adding new members, removed old section on Position header.
Started work on Index section.
Changed structure for section 7 (no change tracking).
Removed header and XML elements section (contents moved to other sections).
Started new section on relation to versioned collections as per RFC3253.
Do not return 424's for in ORDERPATCH multistatus (it's atomic anyway).
Added proper reference to definition of "Coded-URL".
Closed issue ordering-type-values (content model simplified and XML element / DAV property renamed) and updated examples.
Renamed precondition DAV:orderingtype-set to DAV:ordering-type-set (no change tracking).
Closed issue ordered-header-name (header name changed to "ordering-type", contents matches live property).
Closed issue ordermember-format (now takes segment instead of href).
Renamed compliance class to "ordered-collections" for consistency with newer specs, and to allow detection of compliance to final version of spec.
Updated reference to XML spec to 1.0, 2nd edition.
Renamed DAV:ordermember to DAV:order-member.
Made RFC3253-compatible pre/postcondition handling a MUST requirement.
Reference definition of "protected property" from RFC3253.
Added explanation of role of DTD fragments to Notation section.
Clarified semantics for operations on versioned collections and collection versions.
Added atomicity statement for ORDERPATCH method.
Added issues "4.1-DELETE-behaviour", "6.1-safe-update", "6.1-when-are-members-added" and "9.4-UPDATE-non-version-controlled-members" and resolved them. Added new "contributors" section, and mention original authors such as Judith Slein there.
Typos fixed. Added and resolved issues "6-position-preserving-rename", "7-clarify-positions-for-not-explicitly-mentioned-members", "7.1-surprising-ordering-type-in-DAV-ns" and "8-order-for-unordered-subcollections".
Remove unneeded "Copyright" and "IPR" sections (will be inserted by RFC2629 formatter).
Copyright © The Internet Society (2003).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at email@example.com.