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

On 11/14/2016 09:41 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2016-11-14 14:42, Ken Murchison wrote:
>> ...
>>>    o  Should we use a non-protocol-specific REPORT example such as
>>>       DAV:sync-collection rather than using CalDAV:calendar-multiget?
>>> Yes, optimally one defined in the base specs.
>> I think the most widely used REPORT that is closest to being part of the
>> base specs would be DAV:sync-collection.  Unless you think I should use
>> DAV:version-tree from 3253 or one of the WebDAV ACL REPORTs.
> Actually, I was thinking of 
> <>, 
> which "SHOULD" be supported by any server implementing REPORT.

OK, I will generate an example using expand-property.  Do you feel I 
should remove the CALDAV:calendar-multiget example?

I was thinking of adding a non-exhaustive list of current REPORTs that 
return=minimal would apply to.  Thoughts?

>>> 3.  Reducing WebDAV Round-Trips with "return=representation"
>>>    The PUT, COPY, MOVE, [RFC4918] PATCH, [RFC5789] and POST [RFC5995]
>>> Nit: reference looks a bit weird in between. Also, PUT is defined RFC
>>> 723x, which brings us to the question whether this spec needs to
>>> update RFC 723x.
>> Just remove the references altogether, or place them elsewhere?
> Remove sounds good to me.

Actually, I just realized the I had commas in a stupid place.  I fixed 
it so it now looks like this:

"The PUT, COPY, MOVE [RFC4918], PATCH [RFC5789], and POST [RFC5995] 
methods ..."

Does this look better to you?

Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University

Received on Monday, 14 November 2016 17:43:34 UTC