IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> Tue, 15 November 2016 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <w3c-dist-auth-request+bounce-webdav-archive=lists.ietf.org@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-webdav-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-webdav-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A9512955E for <ietfarch-webdav-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:59:46 -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=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 FPEcfjmQUPwu for <ietfarch-webdav-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:59:45 -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 2EE9D129456 for <webdav-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:59:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <w3c-dist-auth-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c6kn0-0007CK-Fo for w3c-dist-auth-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:57:10 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:57:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c6kn0-0007CK-Fo@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 <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>) id 1c6kmz-0007BH-Ry; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:57:09 +0000
Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.157.37]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>) id 1c6kmu-0001Wn-5Q; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:57:04 +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 uAFKucx8126131 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:56:39 -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> <543f32e6-ca27-6c04-9f3a-68550eda24c4@gmx.de>
From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Message-ID: <4bd5b083-65cf-f41c-ef35-80f468a191df@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:56:38 -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: <543f32e6-ca27-6c04-9f3a-68550eda24c4@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: 2016.11.15.203317
X-SMTP-Spam-Clean: 8% ( HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1400_1499 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 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, NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_HTTPS 0, REFERENCES 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __FROM_HAS_AT 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 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, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NAME 0, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0, __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __USER_AGENT 0)
X-SMTP-Spam-Score: 8%
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.78 on 128.2.157.37
Received-SPF: none client-ip=128.2.157.37; envelope-from=murch@andrew.cmu.edu; helo=smtp.andrew.cmu.edu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=3.550, 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: mimas.w3.org 1c6kmu-0001Wn-5Q d90540fd8b3737a608397b2562df8c6d
X-Original-To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: Re: feedback on draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-09
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4bd5b083-65cf-f41c-ef35-80f468a191df@andrew.cmu.edu>
Resent-From: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org> archive/latest/13450
X-Loop: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Resent-Sender: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <w3c-dist-auth.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>


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?

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

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status