RE: getting WebDAV SEARCH ready for the IESG

Yes, that would be fine.

I wasn't privy to the original discussion that resulted in the MUST.
So, I don't know if there are some client requirements/concerns that
would be stepped on by changing it to a SHOULD.



-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [] 
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 11:35 AM
To: John Barone
Subject: Re: getting WebDAV SEARCH ready for the IESG

John Barone wrote:
> First and foremost I would be in favor of wording that is consistent 
> with what's outlined in section 2.3.1, for truncation.  From a client 
> perspective, I would think that the MUST wording in section 5.17.1 is 
> most desirable.  However, from a practical (and admittedly 
> self-serving) point of view, simply stating that the results MUST 
> ordered as the client directed, would be preferred.  Section 2.3.1
goes on to say:
> "... the partial results returned MAY be any subset of the result set 
> that would have satisfied the original query".
> Perhaps in section 5.17.1 the additional sentence could be phrased:
> "... the results that are included in the response document SHOULD be 
> those that order highest"

So, to be precise, the single change you're proposing is to relax the
"must" to a "should"?

I'd be ok with that.

BR, Julian

This email and any attachments may contain confidential and proprietary
information of Blackboard that is for the sole use of the intended
recipient.  If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying,
re-distribution or other use of any of this information is strictly
prohibited.  Please immediately notify the sender and delete this
transmission if you received this email in error.

Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 18:39:50 UTC