- From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:01:37 -0500
- To: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf@ietf.org, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Cyrus Daboo wrote: > I am not convinced the use of Depth in sync report is violating the > definition in 3253. In some ways it is a matter of how you look at the > sync. Your viewpoint is that the report asks the collection for its > changes - in that case, yes, Depth:0 would apply. The other view is that > the report asks each of the child resources to list their change status, > in which case Depth:1 and Depth:infinity also makes sense. Which > viewpoint is taken probably depends on actual implementation rather than > any perceived protocol restrictions. My $.02: I look the sync report as a filtered query for properties (e.g. CALDAV:calendar-query), with the filter being "only give me a DAV:response if the resource has been changed/removed since the specified sync-token". A Depth of 1 or infinity gives us exactly what is specified in the draft. A Depth of 0 refers to the collection itself, and assuming it exists, the DAV:multistatus response may or may not include a single DAV:response element, depending on whether the server maintains an entity tag on the collection which changes with its membership. In either case, the sync-token is returned per the extended grammar in 6.3. So, a sync-collection report with a depth of 0 might simply return the following: <D:multistatus> <D:sync-token>http://example.com/ns/sync/1234</D:sync-token> </D:multistatus> Does this make sense, or is my logic completely convoluted? -- Kenneth Murchison Principal Systems Software Engineer Carnegie Mellon University
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 17:02:55 UTC