Re: feedback on draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-09

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 15 November 2016 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 862DD129526 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:03:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SxDypCvdC1-1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:03:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C42031294F4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:03:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c6kpw-0002Jq-4q for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:00:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:00:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c6kpw-0002Jq-4q@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1c6kpq-0007Qo-7F; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:00:06 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1c6kpf-0001al-08; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:00:01 +0000
Received: from [31.133.147.187] ([31.133.147.187]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M9s8K-1bvjG63D8S-00B3QY; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:59:23 +0100
To: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
References: <147647657198.18541.16272058165406493619.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <c01d2bd4-4495-ba7d-b3bd-3b3bab4314e2@gmx.de> <7fdc3595-9e50-3515-1822-ef13e9197518@gmx.de> <7e92cd24-569e-7eae-e9d9-397660ec0798@andrew.cmu.edu> <5869f8f6-0ded-16a6-e844-0a7e982e6936@gmx.de> <543f32e6-ca27-6c04-9f3a-68550eda24c4@gmx.de> <4bd5b083-65cf-f41c-ef35-80f468a191df@andrew.cmu.edu>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <8be05398-476f-cdf5-6048-1ad26f0da32a@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:59:20 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4bd5b083-65cf-f41c-ef35-80f468a191df@andrew.cmu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:qdSyFgmy/doPs3qbzmAh/usLWP9q3iiLUt9YeZxtqCgDlN81Sul qWt+17uediA+xO306EBAEVCvW+B6LEghyMDVbBkmG/Cy4eYJYWRcL7Su/KfW7mb3YCSKTpo I5xNyqS89MVnE5jXnk5mj2vzSxohXqKMfU0hqQIN8i2TyhO/tJcAHkWJQhTO5eBXzxZcOKh MtBIrmNG3LyZ3xs89fzPQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:9mcWwBmLub4=:es+vCV4lBwTmyKiAtQoOil JYagfdmrymla2yrwkrkNOdxM4Mgr2iaNhfOboltF4OxgjPDOtZR42UALjp8CjwBUbpFkr8d8d 11w1uNClUUHxeZr4lpp2i5USz8lChrnL/k424mrwlNdK2f5wxS6ZWhUPlYGkKZiXPeUWkL2st 9YBoofSx3PQRrec8tPHeJ+IBzICg1qqygRTyxsPD3m6qOPeX/sWzur6c++QRrBbWqYo2ZTypA VMivln9IcCfoKWmpTOEyhePO7BVG3OyIl8+YpTEU46/ZOQJR4IWXedyLKz4htiYChIk5EgVIb d33ltqXBQesfGNPtgn9mEW1YBDBWUpOA3l2pnWRWR0cjxBdbq2g6mpUgeiPp+ha9xSOAAo97e F5hhOf4LMxTN3rXQ7Vc8bxzvLeVDNxNE0q9gHI1Yt/NjfwZsFP5MoP8GtNuG5PD7iZTucTHLG 54KIL4WcZkGIpHo8YWUHtk3K6Ya/S5z5jp8DO18CnGB+w4SmAmolHLdwBWfDZPyl83xnuA3Cj UPMuaYKExHE7Z6V2L27JAnGjuKxNn3kTqGlZRw8yCst4zZ7oV34r7d43weFjumgBSnOcBBnEI yptXZHzcWezOpNO2nx/zk0s32ueFdXCMxhG9RxlIj1OKT8T7+7RYqcjXbo6/WzDQaYpEU3PIZ onUGDhx34Aig94RBRinpSCjHNSEP0sglL92w8731dvYi9c1pIAobrBW2BHwNjbaKwV6aUPch9 HpaswiXCSIJLsXrisFjVqqzb/EQXG218wejzVGTWt3ReJPvTcQKNGD0L+kVepQk+kvptJ+BIc FBPRRsv
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.22; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.117, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1c6kpf-0001al-08 51e15769ed0aa190dc8715e9dcb67ea0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: feedback on draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-09
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/8be05398-476f-cdf5-6048-1ad26f0da32a@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32907
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2016-11-15 21:56, Ken Murchison wrote:
>
>
> On 11/15/2016 03:39 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2016-11-14 15:41, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Tricky question.
>>>
>>> For RFC 7240 I *believe* the reason is that even if a preference is
>>> applied, the response is still compliant with the base spec. Whereas
>>> this is not the case for most behaviors describes in this spec.
>>>
>>> Thus, an implementer should be able to locate this spec by looking at
>>> the IANA method registry. That registry can either list this spec as
>>> modifying the method definition, or this spec would need to state that
>>> it "updates" the definition referenced in the IANA registry.
>>>
>>> Right now I'm not sure which of the two alternatives is best.
>>> ...
>>
>> I talked to Alexey, and I believe we agreed that updating the IANA
>> method registry (*adding* references to this spec) would be sufficient.
>
> OK.  Is this in lieu of listing updated RFCs in the boilerplate or in
> addition?

Instead of.

> Is there a template for updating the registry with references?  Or is
> some simple text asking for the references to be added sufficient?

The latter should be sufficient.

> Just to clarify, which methods do you think need to have additional
> references?  PROPFIND, REPORT, and PROPPATCH because we alter the
> responses for return=minimal?  Also keep in mind the the server is
> always free to ignore the preference if it so chooses.

Those, plus MKCOL, right?

Best regards, Julian