Using POST to  I ↓aAdd Members to Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) Collections

The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Extensions for the Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) do not define the behavior for the "POST" method when applied to collections, as the base specification (HTTP) leaves implementers lots of freedom for the semantics of "POST".¶

This has led to a situation where many WebDAV servers do not implement POST for collections at all, although it is well suited to be used for the purpose of adding new members to a collection, where the server remains in control of the newly assigned URL. In fact, the Atom Publishing Protocol (AtomPub) uses POST exactly for that purpose. On the other hand, WebDAV-based protocols↑ I ↓, such as the Calendar↑ I ↓ing Extensions to WebDAV (CalDAV)↑ I ↓, frequently require clients to pick a unique URL, although the server could easily perform that task.¶

This specification defines a discovery mechanism through which servers can advertise support for POST requests with the aforementioned "add collection member" semantics.¶

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 in February 2011.¶

Copyright (c) 2010 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.¶

9.5 POST for Collections ¶

Since by definition the actual function performed by POST is determined by the server and often depends on the particular resource, the behavior of POST when applied to collections cannot be meaningfully modified because it is largely undefined. Thus, the semantics of POST are unmodified when applied to a collection.¶

9.2 Creating Resources with POST ¶

To add members to a Collection, clients send POST requests to the URI of the Collection.¶

5.3.2 Creating Calendar Object Resources ¶

...¶

When servers create new resources, it's not hard for the server to choose an unmapped URI. It's slightly tougher for clients, because a client might not want to examine all resources in the collection and might not want to lock the entire collection to ensure that a new resource isn't created with a name collision. (...)¶

Letting the server choose the member URI not only is a simplification for certain types of clients, but can also reduce the complexity of the server (in that it doesn't need to persist an additional client-supplied identifier where it already has an internal one like a ↑ I ↓UUIDUniversally Unique Identifier (UUID) or a primary key).¶

This specification defines a discovery mechanism through which servers can advertise support for POST requests with the aforementioned "add collection member" semantics.¶

This specification deliberately only ad↑ I ↓dresses the use case of creating new non-collection resources↑ I ↓, and that it was not a goal to. It was not a goal for this specification to supply the same functionality for creating collection resources (MKCOL)↑ I ↓, or for other operations that require the client to specify a new URL (LOCK, MOVE, or COPY).¶

The terminology used here follows that in the WebDAV 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 purely notational convention. In particular: ¶

• Element ordering is irrelevant.
• Extension elements/attributes (elements/attributes not already defined as valid child elements) may be added anywhere, except when explicitly stated otherwise.

Due to the reasons stated in Section 1, clients can↑ I ↓not rely on a specific server behavior when POST is applied to a collection. This problem is addressed by this specification by allowing servers to advertise a URI that has the desired "add member" semantics.¶

Servers that already use POST for a different purpose can just expose a separate URI. Other servers can just advertise the collection's own URI, thus avoiding minting another URI for a limited purpose.¶

One important use case for this specification ↑ I ↓areis collections that act as WebDAV collections for the purpose of read access (PROPFIND Depth 1/Infinity), but which only support internal member URIs assigned by the server. These collections will not allow a client to create a new member using methods like PUT, MKCOL, LOCK, COPY↑ I ↓, or MOVE. Therefore, this specification defines a new precondition name ([RFC4918], Section 16) that can be used to provide the client with additional information ↑ I ↓about why exactlyregarding exactly why the request failed.¶

The WebDAV ↑ I ↓ACLAccess Control Protocol specification requires the DAV:bind privilege to be granted on a collection for the client to be able to add new collection members ([RFC3744], Section 3.9). Consistent with that, a server MUST reject a POST request to the Add-Member URI of a collection↑ I ↓, unless the principal executing the request is granted DAV:bind privilege on the associated WebDAV collection resource.¶

This document does not introduce any new internationalization considerations beyond those discussed in ↑ I ↓Section 20 of [RFC4918]Section 19 of [RFC4918].¶

Security considerations applicable to HTTP [RFC2616], WebDAV [RFC4918], and XML [XML] apply for this specification as well, namely, Section 20 of [RFC4918] and Section 7 of [RFC3470].¶

Furthermore, servers should be aware that deriving the member path from the data being stored in the resource could potentially expose confidential information. This could even be the case when only a hash code of the content is used.¶

In addition, on servers that do not support this specification, a malevolent user could set the DAV:add-member URI as a custom property, tricking other users to post content to an entirely different URI. Clients can protect themselves against this scenario by ¶

• not following DAV:add-member URIs to different servers, and/or
• verifying that the DAV:add-member property is indeed a live property (this can be achieved by testing the DAV:supported-live-property-set property, or by checking whether DAV:add-member is returned upon PROPFIND/allprop)↑ I ↓.

This document has benefited from thoughtful discussion by Cyrus Daboo and Bernard Desruisseaux.¶