IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: NEW PREFERENCE - depth-noroot (request for expert review)

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Thu, 12 January 2017 11:47 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 EA5721295BD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 03:47:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 HL0grpWqxyPh for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 03:47:21 -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 C060D1295BC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 03:47:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cRdoP-0005xa-7b for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:44:57 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:44:57 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cRdoP-0005xa-7b@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1cRdoL-0005wn-8G for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:44:53 +0000
Received: from [121.99.228.82] (helo=treenet.co.nz) by titan.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1cRdoE-00027k-61 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:44:48 +0000
Received: from [192.168.20.251] (unknown [121.98.40.15]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B96E6EA9 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:44:15 +1300 (NZDT)
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <061139bc-7884-cee1-eb23-607e6a3ae7ce@gmx.de>
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Message-ID: <f90cdf37-d49b-f7ec-fa8c-1230c3cd5603@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:44:09 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <061139bc-7884-cee1-eb23-607e6a3ae7ce@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=121.99.228.82; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.172, BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cRdoE-00027k-61 0b636acf7accd9524874e5f21013ff8e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: NEW PREFERENCE - depth-noroot (request for expert review)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/f90cdf37-d49b-f7ec-fa8c-1230c3cd5603@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33277
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 13/01/2017 12:16 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-13 defines a new "prefer" directive (RFC
> 7240) in
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-13#section-4>.
> 
> Please review and provide feedback.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 

After reading the preference section I am left wondering:

1) what does Appendix B.4 have to do with it?
 there is no use of the preference in the examples.

2) what happens when Depth:0 is given in the request with depth-noroot?

3) what happens when the Depth header is omitted in the request with
depth-noroot?

4) what methods this preference is actually valid for?
 The depth-noroot text references Depth header existence *or implicit*,
but the Depth header leaves it open and explicitly says any method can
re-define Depth. That does not bode well for implementations getting
interoperability correct. Particularly for the impliciat-Depth methods.

Amos

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email