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

On 09/19/2013 10:53 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2013-09-19 16:43, Ken Murchison wrote:
>> On 09/19/2013 10:38 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
>>> Hi Ken,
>>>
>>> --On September 19, 2013 at 10:05:04 AM -0400 Ken Murchison
>>> <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> If you feel that this is a show-stopper, I can certainly remove this
>>>>>> text.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd get rid of it.
>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well I do think it is worth mentioning that the Brief header exists
>>> and this new draft is defining a standards-based alternative to that -
>>> emphasizing that servers/clients that currently support Brief can also
>>> implement Prefer without any problems. The only thing to state is that
>>> if a server receives both Brief and Prefer it should prefer Prefer!
>
> Prefer: prefer
>
> /me ducks
>
>> Do you have any suggested text to replace/augment what I have in
>> Appendix A?  I think Julian wants me to remove the suggestion that
>> Prefer-based implementations also implement Brief.
>
> Stating where it came from is good (plus having the references).
>
> I just wouldn't recommend to implement it; if you do so, people *will* 
> ask what the point of the new spec is.
>

How about something like this:

"Client and server implementations that already support the Brief field 
header should be able to add support for the return=minimal preference 
with little effort."  (I had "minimal effort" but it didn't read right)

"If a server receives both Brief and Prefer header fields in a request, 
it MUST ignore the Brief header field and only apply the Prefer header 
field preferences, if it so chooses."


-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University

Received on Thursday, 19 September 2013 15:54:05 UTC