Re: Thoughts on revising RFC3253 (Delta-V) and RFC3744 (ACL)

Sounds good to me.  I'm tempted to put feature-discovery and REPORT into a 
single document, to avoid a proliferation of small documents, but either 
way is OK with me.

Cheers,
Geoff


w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 05/06/2007 09:02:08 AM:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> now that BIND and SEARCH are in the IESG's hand, it seems to be a good 
> opportunity to discuss whether and how to proceed.
> 
> The oldest spec (after RFC2518) is RFC3253 (Delta-V). Revising RFC3253 
> mainly would consist of...:
> 
> - Updating references & taking care of things that have been moved into 
> RCF2518bis (pre/postconditions and DAV:error)
> 
> - Resolving open issues collected at 
> <http://www.webdav.org/deltav/protocol/rfc3253-issues-list.htm>
> 
> Judging from mailing list traffic, the more important spec however is 
> RFC3744 (ACL). The list of things that needs to be done is similar to 
> RFC3253, although there seem to be more open issues 
> 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-rfc3744bis-issues.html>).
> 
> Looking at spec dependencies, many other specs rely on RFC3253 for
> 
> 1) the definition of pre/postconditions and DAV:error (now in 
RFC2518bis)
> 
> 2) feature discovery (DAV:supported-method-set and 
> DAV:support-live-property-set)
> 
> 3) the REPORT method, and the DAV:expand-property report.
> 
> It seems to me that for future work, 2) and 3) should be moved into one 
> or two separate documents, with the goal to include that stuff into a 
> revision of the base protocol (RFC2518bis).
> 
> To me, this sounds like we should
> 
> a) keep collecting and resolving issues in RFC3253 and RFC3744 (I will 
> move over the information from 
> <http://www.webdav.org/deltav/protocol/rfc3253-issues-list.htm> into a 
> draft for RFC3253bis if nobody objects)
> 
> b) extract the feature discovery stuff from RFC3253 into a new spec 
> (WebDAV extensions for resource feature discovery)
> 
> c) extract the REPORT method definition into a new spec (The WebDAV 
> RFEPORT method)
> 
> And then, once we're done with b) and c), start revising either RFC3253 
> or RFC3744 first.
> 
> Feedback appreciated.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
>