Re: ID: draft-ietf-webdav-bind-05

Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:

> ...
>  > Good point. As far as I can tell, this text was inherited from RFC3253
>  > (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3253.html#rfc.section.1.6>).
>  > Geoff, do you remember what this is supposed to mean? Can/should we
>  > clarify that?
> 
> This is just a placeholder for our deciding to marshal things differently.
> In particular, suppose we had a request header that specified "return error
> information in html format" (that was contemplated at one time).  Then the
> error info would be marshalled as html in the response body, rather than
> in the xml format that is used by default.

So should we change anything here to clarify?

>  > > 7.1.1
>  > >  - I think this would be clearer if it included D:resource-id in the
>  > > request and response, so you could tell where the loop happened.  Are
>  > > resource-id's likely to be costly to return?
>  >
>  > No, they should be cheap. I think we should update the example 
> accordingly.
> 
> I agree.

-> 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.issue.7.1.1_add_resource_id>

> ..

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760