[tahoe-dev] [tahoe-lafs] #958: LAFS 301 Moved Permanently

[James A. Donald]

On 2010-08-04 4:06 AM, tahoe-lafs wrote:
>   Hm, would it be okay to allow people to set an HTTP 301 to a different cap
>   of a different ''type'', such as a read-write cap instead of a read-only
>   cap or a read-only cap instead of a read-write cap?
>
>   Our tradition of transitive attenuation of authority suggests that we
>   should forbid this, which means that a client which is ''following'' an
>   HTTP 301 redirect should remember whatever the attenuation of the original
>   cap was (i.e. if it was read-only or ''???'' if it was a verify-only cap)
>   and refuse to use the new cap with authority outside of that.

Obviously the person who sets up a 301 to greater authority *has* that 
authority - so he should be able to share that authority with who he 
chooses.