- From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 14:44:44 -0400
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51B0D89C.3090102@andrew.cmu.edu>
All, I know its a little late for this feedback, but I thought I'd bring it to the list anyways. The members of the Calendar and Scheduling Consortium (CalConnect) are beginning to use the Prefer header fairly heavily based on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murchison-webdav-prefer Atour latest interop testing session earlier this week, one of the CalDAV client authors noticed that the use of the Preference-Applied response header by a server is currently documented as a MAY in draft-snell-http-prefer. The ensuing discussion in the room reached a consensus of "if a client can't rely on a server returning this response header if/when it applies one or more preferences, then its not very helpful". I know that Preference-Applied was reintroduced after a previous CalConnect interop session, but I don't recall if the strength of the conformance language for Preference-Applied was discussed on the list. Was there a compelling reason behind making the use of Preference-Applied only a MAY for servers, or can this be changed into a SHOULD or MUST? Or would we be better served adding such language to my WebDAV Prefer draft? Obviously, a server can choose not to apply any client requested preferences, but is there a use-case for a server applying a preference and not wanting to tell the client that it did so? Regards, Ken -- Kenneth Murchison Principal Systems Software Engineer Carnegie Mellon University
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 18:45:19 UTC