W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

draft-snell-http-prefer: Preference-Applied

From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 14:44:44 -0400
Message-ID: <51B0D89C.3090102@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

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 

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?


Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 18:45:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:11 UTC