Re: WebDAV sync informal last call

Hi Cyrus,

Here are my comments:

Section 3.2

A resource must appear only once. What happens when there is more than one binding for a resource? Should only one of those bindings be reported? If so, should always the same binding be reported (perhaps the client knows he resource under a specific name)? The latter would have a significant impact on a server implemenation.

Section 3.3 (last paragraph)

When some collection can't be synchronized the status code 405 is put in its DAV:response. However, this would imply the REPORT method is not allowed for the resource, while it is only this report type that isn't. Wouldn't the status code 403 be more appropriate in this case?

The paragraph ends by saying that such a fact should be reported only once. What is to be reported then for this resource when the same report is requested a second time?

Section 3.5.1

second paragraph:

This paragraph states that when a resource is deleted and a new one is created using the same URI only a changed resource should be reported. However, this would imply a relationship between the deleted and the newly created resource. This is in contradiction with the BIND-spec, because the resource-id property would be different. In other words, no such relationship exists. I think a deletion and a creation should be reported in this case. If the same resource is rebound to the same URI nothing should be reported.

Remark:

Resources for which the properties or the contents have been updated since the last synchronization and which hence have a changed getlastmodifed property are not reported as changed. This means the methods PUT and PROPPATCH have no impact on the result of the report.

Best regards,

Werner Donné.

--
http://www.pincette.biz/
Handling your documents with care, wherever you are.

Op 07 Apr 2011 om 16:00 heeft Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name> het volgende geschreven:

> Hi folks,
> It is our intent to submit draft-daboo-webdav-sync-05 to the IETF. As such we would appreciate it if you could give this one final review and post comments back to this list (including "ok to go" comments) so we can show the ADs that review has been done by various WebDAV experts.
> 
> BTW there are already several client and server implementations of this draft now and I believe most implementors are happy with what we have done.
> 
> -- 
> Cyrus Daboo
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 19:33:00 UTC