Re: More issues available for review in editor's draft: accept-post and options

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote:

> hello john.
>
> On 2013-07-08 19:37 , "John Arwe" <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >issue-80 Accept-Post  ... we'll need someone who will be here in summer
> >to put this through the IETF review process (we should hold off until
> >we're pretty sure we have all of them drafted though, like at LC draft
> >... I vaguely
> > remember we might have a second one somewhere in the queue of
> >resolutions, but not really sure).  [1] has the process details, not very
> >scary + we're following an existing RFC's text modulo s/patch/post/* so
> >there should be less than average to go wrong.
> >... anyone reviewing -80 you can just search on -80, you will get
> >multiple hits.  There was a bit of ambiguity in the record (should vs
> >must) so I drafted it as Should in the header registration (identical to
> >accept-patch) and
> > Must in the LDPC section 5.4.13 so it's symmetric to patch (where RFC
> >5789 says the header is a Should, and LDP says LDP Servers Must expose
> >it).
>
> i am writing I-Ds all the time, so i guess i could help with that. i am
> around all of summer, but that doesn't mean that things will move very
> quickly. IETF processes can be relatively slow, so we should not depend on
> this moving forward very quickly. it typically takes couple of draft
> versions to address the issues other people bring up. this slows down the
> process, but also means you get (typically very useful) feedback from
> experienced and interested people.
>

Perhaps between the both of us we can keep it moving.


>
> and just to clarify: the idea is Accept-Post and not Accept-Post-Create as
> suggested in ISSUE-80, right? basically, this means
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5023#section-8.3.4 as a header, if i am not
> mistaken.


Kind of, RFC5023 states it is specific to Atom Collections.  We aren't
saying that, it is a bit more general...just what media type POST accepts,
nothing more.  See
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#header-accept-post

- Steve Speicher


> Accept-Patch had it "easy" because it was specified as part of
> the PATCH method. for Accept-Post, it would certainly be useful to come up
> with some non-LDP use cases; AtomPub may be one, and there probably are
> others. and then of course the obvious question would be why the same spec
> shouldn't also add Accept-Put, but i guess that would make things harder
> and not easier.
>
> cheers,
>
> dret.
>
>
>