W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-05.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:16:10 +0200
Message-ID: <523AEB0A.7000504@gmx.de>
To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On 2013-09-17 14:04, Julian Reschke wrote:
> (FYI)
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-05.txt
> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:27:27 -0700
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>      Title           : Use of the Prefer Header Field in Web Distributed
> Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)
>      Author(s)       : Kenneth Murchison
>      Filename        : draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-05.txt
>      Pages           : 30
>      Date            : 2013-09-12
> ...

Here's my feedback.

Summary: I like it. Thanks for doing the work.

Detailed feedback below:


"If the omission of such a DAV:propstat element would result in a 
DAV:response XML element containing zero DAV:propstat elements, then the 
server MUST substitute a DAV:propstat element consisting of an empty 
DAV:prop element and a DAV:status element of value 200 (OK) 
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics] in its place."

This seems to be here to keep the response DTD-valid. Did you consider 
just relaxing the DTD, and to allow a response without <DAV:prop>?

"If the server honors and applies the return=minimal preference to the 
processing of a PROPFIND request as described above, the server SHOULD 
include a Preference-Applied [I-D.snell-http-prefer] header field 
containing the "return=minimal" token in the response."


The Prefer spec says: "Use of the Preference-Applied header is only 
necessary when it is not readily and obviously apparent that a server 
applied a given preference and such ambiguity might have an impact on 
the client's handling of the response."

Isn't it obvious in this case? If it's not, maybe the SHOULD needs to be 


"This example tries to fetch an unknown property from a 
CARDDAV:addressbook [RFC6352] collection."

Why do we need to mention CARDDAV here? This seems to be an unncessary 

Sections 2.3 and 2.4 suggest changing a 207 response to 200/201 and 
require an empty message body. Why does it need to be empty?


"Authors are encouraged to implement the Brief header field 
functionality in conjunction with this specification to further promote 
interoperability with products that use the Brief header field exclusively."

Hmm. So we specifiy something new and tell people to implement the "old" 
syntax as well?


The draft is kind of chatty with respect to references. Example:

"When a PROPFIND [RFC4918] method request contains a Prefer 
[I-D.snell-http-prefer] header field with a preference of 
"return=minimal", the server SHOULD omit all DAV:propstat XML elements 
containing a DAV:status XML element of value 404 (Not Found) 
[I-D.ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics] from the 207 (Multi-Status) [RFC4918] 

My recommendation is to either strip some -- in particular the whole 
draft is about WebDAV and Prefer, so keeping to point at 4918 all the 
time is a bit tiring, or to make them more useful by making them more 

"When a PROPFIND ([RFC4918], Section 9.1) request contains a Prefer 
header field with a preference of "return=minimal" 
([I-D.snell-http-prefer], Section 4.2) the server SHOULD omit all 
DAV:propstat XML elements containing a DAV:status XML element of value 
404 (Not Found) ([I-D.ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics], Section 6.5.4) from 
the 207 (Multi-Status) response ([RFC4918], Section 11.1)."

Also/method request/request/




Please format the MSDN references so that the URIs turn up in the 
generated TXT version.

For example:

<reference anchor="MSDN.aa563501" 

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2013 12:16:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:45 UTC