One document matched: draft-ietf-webdav-bind-01.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-webdav-bind-00.txt
INTERNET-DRAFT G. Clemm
draft-ietf-webdav-bind-01 Rational Software
J. Crawford
IBM Research
J. Reschke
Greenbytes
J. Slein
Xerox
E.J. Whitehead
U.C. Santa Cruz
Expires August 7, 2003 February 7, 2003
Binding Extensions to WebDAV
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of RFC 2026, Section 10.
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.
Abstract
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 insure the integrity of any bindings that they
allow to be created.
Clemm, et al. [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION............................................3
1.1 Terminology...........................................4
1.2 Rationale for Distinguishing Bindings from URI Mappings
......................................................6
2 OVERVIEW OF BINDINGS....................................6
2.1 Bindings to Collections...............................7
2.2 URI Mappings Created by a new Binding.................7
2.3 DELETE and Bindings...................................8
2.4 COPY and Bindings.....................................9
2.5 MOVE and Bindings.....................................9
2.6 Determining Whether Two Bindings Are to the Same Resource
.....................................................10
2.7 Discovering the Bindings to a Resource...............11
3 PROPERTIES.............................................11
3.1 DAV:resource-id Property.............................12
3.2 DAV:parent-set Property..............................12
4 BIND METHOD............................................12
4.1 Example: BIND........................................14
5 ADDITIONAL STATUS CODES................................14
5.1 506 Loop Detected....................................14
6 SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS................................16
6.1 Privacy Concerns.....................................16
6.2 Redirect Loops.......................................16
6.3 Bindings, and Denial of Service......................16
6.4 Private Locations May Be Revealed....................16
6.5 DAV:parent-set and Denial of Service.................17
7 INTERNATIONALIZATION CONSIDERATIONS....................17
8 IANA CONSIDERATIONS....................................17
9 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY..................................17
10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................17
11 REFERENCES...........................................18
12 AUTHORS' ADDRESSES...................................18
Clemm, et al. [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
1 INTRODUCTION
This specification extends the WebDAV Distributed Authoring
Protocol 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 and WebDAV 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.
Clemm, et al. [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
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 specifies the BIND method, used to
create multiple bindings to the same resource. Sections Error!
Reference source not found. defines the new properties needed to
support multiple bindings to the same resource.
1.1 Terminology
The terminology used here follows and extends that in the WebDAV
Distributed Authoring Protocol specification [RFC2518].
URI Mapping
A relation between an absolute URI and a resource. For an absolute
URI U and the resource it identifies R, the URI mapping can be
thought of as (U => R). Since a resource can represent 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 mappings.
Mapping a resource to an "http" scheme URL makes it possible to
submit HTTP protocol requests to the resource using the URL.
Path Segment
Informally, the characters found between slashes ("/") in a URI.
Formally, as defined in section 3.3 of [RFC2396].
Binding
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
different collections contain a binding between the same path
segment and the same resource, these are two distinct bindings. 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 mappings, and
hence allow requests to be sent to a single resource from multiple
locations in a URI namespace. For example, given a collection C
(accessible through the URI http://www.example.com/coll/), a path
segment S (equal to "foo.html"), and a resource R, then creating
the binding C: (S -> R) makes it possible to use the URI
http://www.example.com/coll/foo.html to access R.
Clemm, et al. [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
Collection
A resource that contains, as part of its state, a set of bindings
that identify internal member resources.
Clemm, et al. [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
Internal Member URI
The URI that identifies an internal member of a collection, and
that consists of the URI for the collection, followed by a slash
character ('/'), followed by the path segment of the binding for
that internal member.
1.2 Rationale for Distinguishing Bindings from URI Mappings
In [RFC2518], the state of a collection is defined as containing a
list of internal member URIs. If there are multiple mappings to a
collection, then the state of the collection is different when you
refer to it via a different URI. This is undesirable, since ideally
a collection's membership should remain the same, independent of
which URI was used to reference it.
The notion of binding is introduced to separate the final segment
of a URI from its parent collection's contribution. This done, a
collection can be defined as containing a set of bindings, thus
permitting new mappings to a collection without modifying its
membership. The authors of this specification anticipate and
recommend that future revisions of [RFC2518] will update the
definition of the state of a collection to correspond to the
definition in this document.
2 OVERVIEW OF BINDINGS
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) MUST NOT disrupt another binding to
that resource, e.g. by turning that binding into a dangling path
segment. The server MUST NOT reclaim system resources after
removing one binding, while other bindings to the resource remain.
In other words, the server MUST maintain the integrity of a
binding.
Clemm, et al. [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
2.1 Bindings to Collections
Bindings to collections can result in loops, which servers MUST
detect when processing "Depth: infinity" requests. It is sometimes
possible to complete an operation in spite of the presence of a
loop. However, the 506 (Loop Detected) status code is defined in
Section 5 for use in contexts where an operation is terminated
because a loop was encountered.
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.
+-------------------------+
| Root Collection |
| (properties) |
| bindings: |
| CollX CollY |
+-------------------------+
| /
| /
| /
+------------------+
| Collection C1 |
| (properties) |
| bindings: |
| x.gif y.jpg |
+------------------+
| \
| \
| \
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Resource R1 | | Resource R2 |
+-------------+ +-------------+
2.2 URI Mappings Created by a new Binding
Suppose a binding from "Binding-Name" to resource R to be added to
a collection, C. Then if C-MAP is the set of URI's 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.
Clemm, et al. [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
For example, if a binding from "foo.html" to R is added to a
collection C, and if the following URI's 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
...
2.3 DELETE and Bindings
The DELETE method was originally defined in [RFC2616]. This section
redefines the behavior of DELETE in terms of bindings, an
abstraction not available when writing [RFC2616]. [RFC2616] states
that "the DELETE method requests that the origin server delete the
resource identified by the Request-URI." Because [RFC2616] did not
distinguish between bindings and resources, the intent of its
definition of DELETE is unclear. The definition presented here is
a clarification of the definition in [RFC2616].
The DELETE method requests that the server remove the binding
between the resource identified by the Request-URI and the binding
name, the last path segment of the Request-URI. The binding MUST be
removed from its parent collection, identified by the Request-URI
minus its trailing slash (if present) and final segment.
Once a resource is unreachable by any URI mapping, the server MAY
reclaim system resources associated with that resource. If DELETE
removes a binding to a resource, but there remain URI mappings to
that resource, the server MUST NOT reclaim system resources
associated with the resource.
Clemm, et al. [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
Although [RFC2518] allows a DELETE to be a non-atomic operation,
the DELETE operation defined here 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, and so is
a single (and therefore atomic) operation.
Section 8.6.1 of [RFC2518] states that during DELETE processing, a
server "MUST remove any URI for the resource identified by the
Request-URI from collections which contain it as a member."
Servers that support bindings MUST NOT follow this requirement.
2.4 COPY and Bindings
As defined in Section 8.8 of [RFC2518], 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
trailing slash (if present) and 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 URIX. 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 URIX and the new resource
(although other URI mappings may also have been created).
URI 1 URI 2 URI 3 URIX
| | | |
| | | <---- URI Mappings ----> |
| | | |
+---------------------+ +------------------------+
| Resource R | | Resource R' |
+---------------------+ +------------------------+
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 [RFC2518] 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.
2.5 MOVE and Bindings
The MOVE method has the effect of creating a new binding to a
resource (at the Destination), and removing an existing binding (at
the Request-URI). The name of the new binding is the last path
segment of the Destination header, and the new binding is added to
Clemm, et al. [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
its parent collection, identified by the Destination header minus
its trailing slash (if present) and final segment.
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 URIX. After successful completion of the
MOVE operation, a new binding has been created which creates at
least the URI mapping between URIX and resource R (although other
URI mappings may also have been created). 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.
>> Before Request:
URI 1 URI 2 URI 3
| | |
| | | <---- URI Mappings
| | |
+---------------------+
| Resource R |
+---------------------+
>> After Request:
URI 1 URI 2 URIX
| | |
| | | <---- URI Mappings
| | |
+---------------------+
| Resource R |
+---------------------+
Although [RFC2518] allows a MOVE on a collection to be a non-atomic
operation, the MOVE operation defined here MUST be atomic. Even
when the Request-URI identifies a collection, the MOVE operation
involves only removing one binding to that collection and adding
another. There are no operations on bindings to any of its
children, so the case of MOVE on a collection is the same as the
case of MOVE on a non-collection resource. Both are atomic.
2.5.1Additional MOVE Semantics
Additional Preconditions:
(DAV:cycle-allowed): If the request-URL identifies a collection,
and the parent of the Destination is that collection or is a member
of that collection, the server MUST support cycles in the URL
namespace.
Clemm, et al. [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
2.6 Determining Whether Two Bindings Are to the Same Resource
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 REQUIRED DAV:resource-id property defined in Section 3.1 is a
resource identifier, which MUST be unique across all resources for
all time. If the values of DAV:resource-id returned by PROPFIND
requests through two bindings are identical, the client can be
assured that the two bindings are to the same resource.
The DAV:resource-id property is created, and its value assigned,
when the resource is created. The value of DAV:resource-id MUST
NOT be changed. Even after the resource is no longer accessible
through any URI, that value MUST NOT be reassigned to another
resource's DAV:resource-id property.
Any method that creates a new resource MUST assign a new, unique
value to its DAV:resource-id property. For example, a PUT that
creates a new resource must assign a new, unique value to its
DAV:resource-id property. A COPY, since it creates a new resource
at the Destination URI, must assign a new, unique value to its
DAV:resource-id property.
On the other hand, any method that affects an existing resource
MUST NOT change the value of its DAV:resource-id property. For
example, a PUT that updates an existing resource must not change
the value of its DAV:resource-id property. A MOVE, since it does
not create a new resource, but only changes the location of an
existing resource, must not change the value of its DAV:resource-id
property.
2.7 Discovering the Bindings to a Resource
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 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 the client is authorized to see. When deciding
whether to support the DAV:parent-set property, server implementers
/ administrators should balance the benefits it provides against
the cost of maintaining the property and the security risks
enumerated in Sections 6.4 and 6.5.
3 PROPERTIES
The bind feature introduces the following properties for a
resource.
Clemm, et al. [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
3.1 DAV:resource-id Property
The DAV:resource-id property is a REQUIRED property that enables
clients to determine whether two bindings are to the same resource.
The value of DAV:resource-id is a URI, and may use any registered
URI scheme that guarantees the uniqueness of the value across all
resources for all time (e.g. the opaquelocktoken: scheme defined in
[RFC2518]).
<!ELEMENT resource-id (href)>
3.2 DAV:parent-set Property
The DAV:parent-set property is an OPTIONAL property that enables
clients to discover what collections contain a binding to this
resource (i.e. what collections have that resource as an internal
member). It contains an of href/segment pair for each collection
that has a binding to the resource. The href identifies the
collection, and the segment identifies the binding name of that
resource in that collection.
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
collection. 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, y.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:binding-set of R1 (i.e. either both [/CollX, x.gif] and
[/CollX, y.gif] or alternatively, both [/CollY, x.gif] and [/CollY,
y.gif]).
<!ELEMENT parent-set (parent)*>
<!ELEMENT parent (href, segment)>
<!ELEMENT segment (#PCDATA)>
PCDATA value: segment, as defined in section 3.3 of [RFC2396]
4 BIND METHOD
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 MUST fail. Note that it is especially difficult to
maintain the integrity of cross-server bindings. Unless the server
where the resource resides knows about all bindings on all servers
to that resource, it may unwittingly destroy the resource or make
it inaccessible without notifying another server that manages a
binding to the resource. For example, if server A permits creation
of a binding to a resource on server B, server A must notify server
B about its binding and must have an agreement with B that B will
not destroy the resource while A's binding exists. Otherwise
server B may receive a DELETE request that it thinks removes the
Clemm, et al. [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
last binding to the resource and destroy the resource while A's
binding still exists. Status code 507 (Cross-server Binding
Forbidden) is defined in Section 5.1 for cases where servers fail
cross-server BIND requests because they cannot guarantee the
integrity of cross-server bindings.
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 Section 9.6 of [RFC2518].
Marshalling:
The request MAY include an Overwrite header.
The request body MUST be a DAV:bind XML element.
<!ELEMENT bind ANY>
<!ELEMENT bind (segment, href)>
If the request succeeds, the server MUST return 201 (Created) when
a new binding was created and 204 (No Content) when an existing
binding was replaced.
If a response body for a successful request is included, it MUST be
a DAV:bind-response XML element. Note that this document does not
define any elements for the BIND response body, but the DAV:bind-
response element is defined to ensure interoperability between
future extensions that do define elements for the BIND response
body.
<!ELEMENT bind-response ANY>
Preconditions:
(DAV:bind-into-collection): The Request-URL MUST identify a
collection.
(DAV:bind-source-exists): The DAV:href element MUST identify a
resource.
(DAV:binding-allowed): The resource identified by the DAV:href
supports multiple bindings to it.
(DAV:cross-server-binding): If the resource identified by the
DAV:href element in the request body is on another server from the
collection identified by the request-URL, the server MUST support
cross-server bindings.
(DAV:name-allowed): The name specified by the DAV:segment is
available for use as a new binding name.
(DAV:can-overwrite): If the collection already contains a binding
with the specified path segment, and if an Overwrite header is
included, the value of the Overwrite header MUST be "T".
Clemm, et al. [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
(DAV:cycle-allowed): If the DAV:href element identifies a
collection, and if the request-URL identifies a collection that is
a member of that collection, the server MUST support cycles in the
URL namespace.
Postconditions:
(DAV:new-binding): The collection MUST have a binding that maps the
segment specified in the DAV:segment element in the request body,
to the resource identified by the DAV:href element in the request
body.
4.1 Example: BIND
>> Request:
BIND /coll HTTP/1.1
Host: www.example.com
Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8"
Content-Length: xxx
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<D:bind xmlns:D="DAV:">
<D:segment>bar.html</D:segment>
<D:href>http://www.example.com/coll/foo.html</D:href>
</D:bind>
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
The server added a new binding to the collection,
"http://www.example.com/coll", associating "bar.html" with the
resource identified by the URL
"http://www.example.com/coll/foo.html". Clients can now use the
URL "http://www.example.com/coll/bar.html", to submit requests to
that resource.
5 ADDITIONAL STATUS CODES
5.1 506 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".
When this status code is the top-level status code for the
operation, it indicates that the entire operation failed.
Clemm, et al. [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
When this status code occurs inside a multi-status response, it
indicates only that a loop is being terminated, but does not
indicate failure of the operation as a whole.
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
Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8"
Content-Length: xxx
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<D:propfind xmlns:D="DAV:">
<D:prop> <D:displayname/> </D:prop>
</D:propfind>
>> Response:
HTTP/1.1 207 Multi-Status
Content-Type: text/xml; charset="utf-8"
Content-Length: xxx
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<D:multistatus xmlns:D="DAV:">
<D:response>
<D:href>http://www.example.com/Coll/</D:href>
<D:propstat>
<D:prop>
<D:displayname>Loop Demo</D:displayname>
</D:prop>
<D:status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</D:status>
</D:propstat>
</D:response>
<D:response>
<D:href>http://www.example.com/Coll/Foo</D:href>
<D:propstat>
<D:prop>
<D:displayname>Bird Inventory</D:displayname>
</D:prop>
<D:status>HTTP/1.1 200 OK</D:status>
</D:propstat>
</D:response>
<D:response>
<D:href>http://www.example.com/Coll/Bar</D:href>
<D:status>HTTP/1.1 506 Loop Detected</D:status>
</D:response>
</D:multistatus>
Clemm, et al. [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
6 SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS
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, bindings introduce several
new security concerns and increase the risk of some existing
threats. These issues are detailed below.
6.1 Privacy Concerns
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.
6.2 Redirect Loops
Although redirect 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".
6.3 Bindings, and Denial of Service
Denial of service attacks were already possible by posting URLs
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.
6.4 Private Locations May Be Revealed
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.
Clemm, et al. [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
6.5 DAV:parent-set and Denial of Service
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.
7 INTERNATIONALIZATION CONSIDERATIONS
All internationalization considerations mentioned in [RFC2518] also
apply to this document.
8 IANA CONSIDERATIONS
All IANA considerations mentioned in [RFC2518] also apply to this
document.
9 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
The following notice is copied from RFC 2026, Section 10.4, and
describes the position of the IETF concerning intellectual property
claims made against this document.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use other technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on
the procedures of the IETF with respect to rights in standards-
track and standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11.
Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 Secretariat.
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 practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF
Executive Director.
10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This draft is the collaborative product of the authors and Tyson
Chihaya, Jim Davis, and Chuck Fay. This draft has benefited from
thoughtful discussion by Jim Amsden, Peter Carlson, Steve Carter,
Ken Coar, Ellis Cohen, Dan Connolly, Bruce Cragun, Spencer Dawkins,
Mark Day, Rajiv Dulepet, David Durand, Roy Fielding, Yaron Goland,
Clemm, et al. [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
Fred Hitt, Alex Hopmann, James Hunt, 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 other members of the WebDAV working
group.
11 REFERENCES
[RFC2026] S.Bradner, "The Internet Standards Process", RFC 2026,
October 1996.
[RFC2119] S.Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2277] H.Alvestrand, "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
Languages." RFC 2277, January 1998.
[RFC2396] T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax." RFC 2396, August 1998.
[RFC2518] Y.Goland, E.Whitehead, A.Faizi, S.R.Carter, D.Jensen,
"HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring - WEBDAV", RFC 2518,
February 1999.
[RFC2616] R.Fielding, J.Gettys, J.C.Mogul, H.Frystyk, L.Masinter,
P.Leach, and T.Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[XML] T. Bray, J. Paoli, C.M. Sperberg-McQueen, "Extensible Markup
Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)" W3C Recommendation 6 October
2000. http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006.
12 AUTHORS' ADDRESSES
Geoffrey Clemm
Rational Software Corporation
20 Maguire Road
Lexington, MA 02173-3104
Email: geoffrey.clemm@rational.com
Jason Crawford
IBM Research
P.O. Box 704
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Email: ccjason@us.ibm.com
Julian F. Reschke
greenbytes GmbH
Salzmannstrasse 152
Muenster, NW 48159, Germany
Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
Clemm, et al. [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT WebDAV Versioning February 7, 2003
Judy Slein
Xerox Corporation
800 Phillips Road, 105-50C
Webster, NY 14580
Email: jslein@crt.xerox.com
Jim Whitehead
UC Santa Cruz, Dept. of Computer Science
1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064
Email: ejw@cse.ucsc.edu
Clemm, et al. [Page 19]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 10:23:48 |