- 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>
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 21:00:07 UTC