Re: draft-murchison-webdav-prefer

Hi James,


On 12/18/2014 10:52 AM, James M Snell wrote:
>
> I think that behavior is acceptable. Please be sure to include the 
> Preference-Applied response header tho. Just to make it unambiguous.
>

Yes, absolutely.  The example in the draft includes it as does my dev 
implementation.



> On Dec 18, 2014 7:26 AM, "Ken Murchison" <murch@andrew.cmu.edu 
> <mailto:murch@andrew.cmu.edu>> wrote:
>
>     All,
>
>     I'd like to get some feedback on draft-murchison-webdav-prefer
>     <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-07> ,
>     specifically Section 3
>     <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-07#section-3>
>     (the rest of the document is truly WebDAV specific).  Per a
>     request from the Apple calendar client folks, we'd like to extend
>     Prefer:return=representation
>     <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7240#section-4.2> to apply to a
>     conditional PUT request that fails with a 412 (Precondition
>     Failed) response.  This eliminates the need for a subsequent GET
>     to fetch the current representation of a resource that failed to
>     update because of a validator mismatch.  I view this as analogous
>     to Get + If-Range.
>
>     Does anyone see any issues with this new behavior?  Does it
>     violate RFC7230-7232 in any way?  Are we allowed to extended
>     return=representation to failure responses (RFC7240 only discusses
>     success responses)?  Are there any other sane interpretations of a
>     412 response with a Preference-Applied:representation header field
>     which would cause ambiguity for the client?
>
>     Thanks and Happy Holidays!
>     Ken
>
>     -- 
>     Kenneth Murchison
>     Principal Systems Software Engineer
>     Carnegie Mellon University
>


-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University