W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: feedback on draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-09

From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:56:38 -0500
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4bd5b083-65cf-f41c-ef35-80f468a191df@andrew.cmu.edu>


On 11/15/2016 03:39 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2016-11-14 15:41, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> ...
>> Tricky question.
>>
>> For RFC 7240 I *believe* the reason is that even if a preference is
>> applied, the response is still compliant with the base spec. Whereas
>> this is not the case for most behaviors describes in this spec.
>>
>> Thus, an implementer should be able to locate this spec by looking at
>> the IANA method registry. That registry can either list this spec as
>> modifying the method definition, or this spec would need to state that
>> it "updates" the definition referenced in the IANA registry.
>>
>> Right now I'm not sure which of the two alternatives is best.
>> ...
>
> I talked to Alexey, and I believe we agreed that updating the IANA 
> method registry (*adding* references to this spec) would be sufficient.

OK.  Is this in lieu of listing updated RFCs in the boilerplate or in 
addition?

Is there a template for updating the registry with references?  Or is 
some simple text asking for the references to be added sufficient?

Just to clarify, which methods do you think need to have additional 
references?  PROPFIND, REPORT, and PROPPATCH because we alter the 
responses for return=minimal?  Also keep in mind the the server is 
always free to ignore the preference if it so chooses.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2016 20:57:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 15 November 2016 20:57:12 UTC