Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-reschke-webdav-post-02.txt

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:49:45 +0100

Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> 
> I support this draft, and believe the element names should be added into 
> the DAV: namespace.

Yes, I hear that a lot. It would be good to hear the Apps Area 
Director's opinion, though...

> I suggest removing the section that talks about the HTTP Link header, to 
> remove this dependency (or at least, marking it somehow as "to be 
> removed by editor if the HTTP Link I-D is not ready").

I've rearranged it so it's clear it's optional 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-post-latest.html>).

Funny enough, in the meantime the Link header was updated as well, so 
maybe we can just leave things in.

BR, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:35:06 +0100

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> I have no problem with this draft and with the element names in the 
> "DAV:" namespace.  Depending on what status the community has consensus 
> for, we could either do it as Proposed Standard, or as Informational (or 
> I suppose Experimental) with specific mention of the use of the "DAV:" 
> namespace.

I'm happy with Experimental; but if other specs on the Standards Track 
want to use it we'll have to progress it to Proposed anyway.

So I'll wait for some more feedback, and then submit something 
reflecting that at the end of this week.

> It now seems we're working towards a major update of WebDAV with a bunch 
> of features we may want to push into the core requirements.  Not 
> necessarily next year or the year after, just something to start 
> thinking about once we've had experience with things like MKCOL bodies 
> and POST to create.  I've also had pings recently about property 
> synchronization and collection synch tags.
> 
> Lisa

Indeed. Maybe we need WebDAVbis at some point in the future.

More ideas:

- extract REPORT method and some of the discovery mechanisms out of 
RFC3253 for easier re-use

- revise ACL

- augment safe methods such as PROPFIND, REPORT and SEARCH with GETable 
representations (allowing simple addressing, caching and conditional 
requests)

- do some work on mapping JCR (Java Content Repository) features onto 
WebDAV, such as multivalued properties (currently lacking in RFC 4316) 
and resource types (aka node types in JCR)

- look into peaceful co-existence with AtomPub (:-)

BR, Julian

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:26:30 -0800

I have no problem with this draft and with the element names in the "DAV:"
namespace.  Depending on what status the community has consensus for, we
could either do it as Proposed Standard, or as Informational (or I suppose
Experimental) with specific mention of the use of the "DAV:" namespace.

It now seems we're working towards a major update of WebDAV with a bunch of
features we may want to push into the core requirements.  Not necessarily
next year or the year after, just something to start thinking about once
we've had experience with things like MKCOL bodies and POST to create.  I've
also had pings recently about property synchronization and collection synch
tags.

Lisa

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>wrote:

> Yes, I hear that a lot. It would be good to hear the Apps Area Director's
> opinion, though...
>
>> remove this dependency (or at least, marking it somehow as "to be removed by
>> editor if the HTTP Link I-D is not ready").
>>
>
> I've rearranged it so it's clear it's optional (<
> http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-post-latest.html>).
>
> Funny enough, in the meantime the Link header was updated as well, so maybe
> we can just leave things in.
>
> BR, Julian
>
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:21:01 +0100

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> ...

Does this:

       Note: this specification defines new properties and precondition
       names in the "DAV:" namespace, which the WebDAV specification
       reserves for use by the IETF ([RFC4918], Section 21.1).  However,
       there was rough consensus in the WebDAV community that it is of
       general applicability to other WebDAV related standards efforts,
       and thus deserves inclusion into the base namespace.

sound ok? 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-post-latest.html#terminology>)

BR, Julian

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:39:29 -0800

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>wrote:

> sound ok? (<
> http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-post-latest.html#terminology
> >)
>

Yes, that would work. Pedantically speaking, though, replace the "it" in
line 4 with "the specification" otherwise it refers to the last-used noun,
"the WebDAV community"  :)

Lisa