[lemonade] Re: draft-ietf-lemonade-urlauth-07.txt nits

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Ken Murchison wrote:
> section BASE.7.1.URLMECH: The text states "This status response code is 
> returned in an untagged OK response in response to a RESETKEY, SELECT, or 
> EXAMINE command", but the example shows it being used in the tagged response 
> to RESETKEY.  Is the text wrong or the example?

I think that the correct fix is to add a single sentence:

    This status response code is returned in an untagged OK response in
    response to a RESETKEY, SELECT, or EXAMINE command.  In the case of
    the RESETKEY command, this status response code can be sent in the
    tagged OK response instead of requiring a separate untagged OK
    response.

An untagged OK response must be used for SELECT and EXAMINE, since the 
tagged OK response for these commands already holds the READ-ONLY and 
READ-WRITE status response codes.

In my opinion, a client should accept any status response codes in either 
a tagged or an untagged response.  The inclusion of status response codes 
in tagged responses should properly be viewed as a shortcut to make the 
protocol less chatty.

Had we thought the issue more carefully, there never would have been a 
CAPABILITY response; these would always be status response codes.  An 
argument can be made to do the same for SEARCH, SORT, and THREAD.

> section BASE.7.4.URLFETCH: Per the ABNF, Contents should read "One or more 
> URL/nstring pairs"

OK.

> section 8: Since the GENURLAUTH command accepts a URL with no <mechanism> or 
> <enc-urlauth>, shouldn't the ABNF for iurlauth be:
>
> iurlauth = [expire] ";URLAUTH=" access [ ":" mechanism ":" enc-urlauth ]

Sigh, it's a bit more complicated than this.  Let me mull over it a bit.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
lemonade@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade