Subject: [Simple] WGLC: XCAP Base

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:20:07 +0300

The WG chairs would like to start a Working Group Last Call on the following internet draft as part of the SIMPLE Data Manipulation work to be submitted to IESG:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-simple-xcap-03.txt

(The draft may not be available on the above link for another couple of days or so. Until it does, please fetch it from http://www.softarmor.com/wgdb/docs/draft-ietf-simple-xcap-03.txt)

This WGLC is 3 weeks long and will end on August 8th.

Please send your comments to this mailing list and to the authors. 

If you reviewed the draft and found no issues, please indicate so on the mailing list. This will help us evaluate the level of review and group consensus.

Thanks,
Hisham

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Jari Urpalainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:09:13 +0300

A few comments/questions.

8.5 Managing Etags

As Jonathan has interpreted (complying with rfc2616) that a node or even 
an attribute of an xml-document can be regarded as a resource is it 
allowable to send the document ETag after partial delete which is then 
actually an ETag of a different resource ? I would certainly prefer that 
it is still being sent as otherwise you introduce a second deficiency 
into safe updates of the document (the first one being partial append). 
This would mean that only partial modifies are safe. I can think only 
ugly solutions to this IMO annoying problem which is mostly due to the 
fact that partial updates were (naturally) not thought when http was 
created.

6.3 Node selector

Although I have already commented on the default namespace issue I'll 
repeat it here: XPath 1.0 has the interpretation that namespace uri is 
null if the location step prefix is empty. The upcoming XPath 2.0 seems 
to use the element context which is the only sane way in XCAP, too. So 
just clearly state that in the text (otherwise compliant with XPath 1.0).

7 Client Operations

I am sorry to repeat but I still don't understand idempotent delete. 
What should the server do during "a subsequent DELETE to the same URI 
should FIND the resource deleted..." ? I don't understand find here.
---------------
I still miss non-default namespace examples. Also in all examples where 
location steps exist there should be more predicates to imply that each 
step has to point to a single element.

Also I havn't noticed any discussions in the mailing lists about caching 
proxies as they will certainly try to cache responses unless 
Cache-Control or Expires headers are used. So some recommendations are 
needed in the text.

BR,
Jari