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

[Ken Murchison <[e-mail]>]

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