Subject: Write-up draft-reschke-webdav-post-05

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:04:35 -0800

Hi folks,
I am the document shepherd for draft-reschke-webdav-post-05 which we would 
like to submit to the IESG in the next few days. I am currently looking for 
feedback from anyone who has or is planning to implement this 
specification. If you have done an implementation (client or server) please 
let me know so we can include that in the write-up. One thing we want to 
do, assuming there is enough interest, is to submit this for proposed 
standard rather than experimental.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Mike Douglass <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 15:52:55 -0500

I expect I will implement this in the near future and from my reading
would support the approach of submitting as a proposed standard.

A question raised by the proposal:
Is there any intent to provide an equivalent for COPY and MOVE? This
proposal seems to handle the case of symlinked resources but COPY and
MOVE would still be an issue.

Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I am the document shepherd for draft-reschke-webdav-post-05 which we
> would like to submit to the IESG in the next few days. I am currently
> looking for feedback from anyone who has or is planning to implement
> this specification. If you have done an implementation (client or
> server) please let me know so we can include that in the write-up. One
> thing we want to do, assuming there is enough interest, is to submit
> this for proposed standard rather than experimental.
>

-- 

Mike Douglass                           [email-masked]
Senior Systems Programmer
Communication & Collaboration Technologies      518 276 6780(voice) 2809
(fax)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 110 8th Street, Troy, NY 12180

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:20:52 +0100

> MOVE would still be an issue.

This has been discussed before.

Using POST to add collection members is straigthforward, after all, this 
was what POST was defined to do in the first place. So this 
specification just allows servers to expose support for something they 
could have done all the time.

The problem is that extending this to methods other than PUT *very* 
quickly makes it very complicated, as the namespace operations also 
require Depth header support.

BTW: why "symlinked"?

BR, Julian

---

From: Mike Douglass <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:40:14 -0500

symlinked because that's exactly what they might be in practice if
you're delivering out of a file system - though resources in a db could
be similarly linked

--