- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:17:11 +0100
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2017-01-12 12:44, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 13/01/2017 12:16 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-13 defines a new "prefer" directive (RFC >> 7240) in >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-13#section-4>. >> >> Please review and provide feedback. >> >> Best regards, Julian >> > > After reading the preference section I am left wondering: > > 1) what does Appendix B.4 have to do with it? > there is no use of the preference in the examples. My copy says Appendix B.1... > 2) what happens when Depth:0 is given in the request with depth-noroot? It says: > This preference is only intended to be used with WebDAV methods whose > definitions explicitly provide support for the Depth [RFC4918] header > field. Furthermore, this preference only applies when the Depth > header field has a value of "1" or "infinity" (either implicitly or > explicitly). So it would be ignored. > 3) what happens when the Depth header is omitted in the request with > depth-noroot? Defaults apply, as stated above... > 4) what methods this preference is actually valid for? > The depth-noroot text references Depth header existence *or implicit*, > but the Depth header leaves it open and explicitly says any method can > re-define Depth. That does not bode well for implementations getting > interoperability correct. Particularly for the impliciat-Depth methods. I don't see a problem here. The preference is defines for methods that use the Depth: request header field (including future ones). Clients can always check whether the preference was applied. Best regards, Julian (But thanks for checking!)
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2017 12:18:11 UTC