W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2016

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:59:20 +0100
To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8be05398-476f-cdf5-6048-1ad26f0da32a@gmx.de>
On 2016-11-15 21:56, Ken Murchison wrote:
> 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?

Instead of.

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

The latter should be 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.

Those, plus MKCOL, right?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2016 21:00:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 15 November 2016 21:00:06 UTC