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

Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> Mon, 14 November 2016 22:34 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 5BD9F129678 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:34:05 -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 8WcfU963MJYS for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:34:04 -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 44A7C12962F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:34:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c6Plj-0005UJ-I2 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:30:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:30:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c6Plj-0005UJ-I2@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 <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>) id 1c6Pld-0005Rh-81; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:30:21 +0000
Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.157.38]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>) id 1c6PlX-0004ZK-7o; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:30:16 +0000
Received: from [172.31.25.154] (VPN-172-31-25-154.VPN.CMU.LOCAL [172.31.25.154]) (user=murch mech=PLAIN (0 bits)) by smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id uAEMTnCh114506 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 14 Nov 2016 17:29:50 -0500
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 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> <ce13daf5-c685-3e5f-d36d-c961eb158c4d@andrew.cmu.edu> <ce932309-f738-cfb0-36ce-ad73f68f4704@gmx.de>
From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Message-ID: <551e3785-24d2-bdb1-c40c-3fa2bc07488a@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 17:29:49 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ce932309-f738-cfb0-36ce-ad73f68f4704@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version: 6.3.0.2556906, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2016.11.14.222117
X-SMTP-Spam-Clean: 8% ( HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_2999 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, FROM_EDU_TLD 0, IN_REP_TO 0, LEGITIMATE_NEGATE 0, LEGITIMATE_SIGNS 0, MSG_THREAD 0, REFERENCES 0, SINGLE_URI_IN_BODY 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __FROM_HAS_AT 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HTTPS_URI 0, __IN_REP_TO 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MOZILLA_USER_AGENT 0, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_1 0, __REFERENCES 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SINGLE_URI_TEXT 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NAME 0, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0, __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __URI_IN_BODY 0, __URI_NO_MAILTO 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS , __URI_WITH_PATH 0, __USER_AGENT 0)
X-SMTP-Spam-Score: 8%
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 128.2.157.38
Received-SPF: none client-ip=128.2.157.38; envelope-from=murch@andrew.cmu.edu; helo=smtp.andrew.cmu.edu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.062, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.799, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1c6PlX-0004ZK-7o cace04afe21af566e33e763a776ad23a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: feedback on draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-09
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/551e3785-24d2-bdb1-c40c-3fa2bc07488a@andrew.cmu.edu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32900
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 11/14/2016 05:08 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2016-11-14 18:42, Ken Murchison wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/14/2016 09:41 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 2016-11-14 14:42, Ken Murchison wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>    o  Should we use a non-protocol-specific REPORT example such as
>>>>>       DAV:sync-collection rather than using CalDAV:calendar-multiget?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, optimally one defined in the base specs.
>>>>
>>>> I think the most widely used REPORT that is closest to being part 
>>>> of the
>>>> base specs would be DAV:sync-collection.  Unless you think I should 
>>>> use
>>>> DAV:version-tree from 3253 or one of the WebDAV ACL REPORTs.
>>>
>>> Actually, I was thinking of
>>> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3253.html#REPORT_expand-property>, 
>>>
>>> which "SHOULD" be supported by any server implementing REPORT.
>>
>> OK, I will generate an example using expand-property.  Do you feel I
>> should remove the CALDAV:calendar-multiget example?
>
> One example should be enough.

Fair enough.


>> I was thinking of adding a non-exhaustive list of current REPORTs that
>> return=minimal would apply to.  Thoughts?
>
> Can we clarify this based on the report's response format?

Not sure what you mean.  It only applies to reports which use the 
multi-status response.  Is this not clear from the prose?  If not, I 
will attempt to clarify.


>>>>> 3.  Reducing WebDAV Round-Trips with "return=representation"
>>>>>
>>>>>    The PUT, COPY, MOVE, [RFC4918] PATCH, [RFC5789] and POST [RFC5995]
>>>>>
>>>>> Nit: reference looks a bit weird in between. Also, PUT is defined RFC
>>>>> 723x, which brings us to the question whether this spec needs to
>>>>> update RFC 723x.
>>>>
>>>> Just remove the references altogether, or place them elsewhere?
>>>
>>> Remove sounds good to me.
>>
>> Actually, I just realized the I had commas in a stupid place.  I fixed
>> it so it now looks like this:
>>
>> "The PUT, COPY, MOVE [RFC4918], PATCH [RFC5789], and POST [RFC5995]
>> methods ..."
>>
>> Does this look better to you?
>
> A bit, but it's still misleading for PUT, right?

Perhaps, but PUT is discussed in 4918.  I can add a reference to 7231 if 
you prefer.


-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University