Re: [art] ART Area Review for draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments-02

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2017-05-17 15:07, Ken Murchison wrote:
> ...
>> Only for creation of the attachment. Once is has been created, it
>> should have its own URI, and the usual HTTP methods should be applicable.
>
> Using HTTP methods directly on the attachment URI makes things more
> difficult because the calendar resource(s) referencing the attachment
> also need to be updated.  This would have to be done either as a
> side-effect of the PUT/DELETE on the attachment, or as a separate PUT
> (and separate round-trips) on the resource(s).  The desire was to avoid
> doing either one of these, which is why a POST on the calendar resource
> was chosen as the method to add/update/delete an attachment from a
> calendar resource.

But the POST is *not* on the calendar resource, but on the calendar 
resource + query parameters, which, from HTTP's point of view is a 
different resource already.

Furthermore, what URIs are used is orthogonal to the question of which 
methods to use.

Why is

   POST /calendar-entry?action=remove&attachment=xyz

easier to process than

   DELETE /calendar-entry?attachment=xyz

or

   DELETE /calendar-entry/attachments/xyz

?

> ...

Best regards, Julian