Re: More issues available for review in editor's draft: accept-post and options

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 1:37 PM, John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> issue-80 Accept-Post  ... we'll need someone who will be here in summer to
> put this through the IETF review process (we should hold off until we're
> pretty sure we have all of them drafted though, like at LC draft ... I
> vaguely remember we might have a second one somewhere in the queue of
> resolutions, but not really sure).  [1] has the process details, not very
> scary + we're following an existing RFC's text modulo s/patch/post/* so
> there should be less than average to go wrong.
> ... anyone reviewing -80 you can just search on -80, you will get multiple
> hits.  There was a bit of ambiguity in the record (should vs must) so I
> drafted it as Should in the header registration (identical to accept-patch)
> and Must in the LDPC section 5.4.13 so it's symmetric to patch (where RFC
> 5789 says the header is a Should, and LDP says LDP Servers Must expose it).
>

I'm available for a good chunk of the summer (except a week in August).

The second one wasn't accepted, we talked about the "membership inlined"
thingy as a possible header I believe.

My memory has this as a SHOULD but if they do, they MUST behave as ...

- Steve Speicher



> issue-32 MUST support options.  So Raul/Miguel, heads up.
>
> I also note that some of our F2F resolutions make requirements on OPTIONS
> responses (only) that I do not think have the same level of Should/Must on
> HEAD responses, but I drafted as things were minuted.  So to the degree
> people care about that form of symmetry, bring up issues if needed.
>
> Best Regards, John
>
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages<http://w3.ibm.com/jct03019wt/bluepages/simpleSearch.wss?searchBy=Internet+address&location=All+locations&searchFor=johnarwe>
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
>
>