I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for
this draft
(for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.
Document: draft-reschke-webdav-post-06
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2010-04-12
IETF LC End Date: 2010-05-07
IESG Telechat date: (if known):
Summary: This draft is roughly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
I have three nits of which I am not sure since I am reading this draft
without the entire context.
Nits comments:
1. In the abstract there is the following paragraph: "On the other
hand, WebDAV-based protocols such as the Calendar Extensions to WebDAV
(CalDAV) frequently require clients to pick a unique URL, although the
server could easily perform that task." This is also mentioned in the
introduction. I am not sure why is this mentioned here and if there is a
specific recommendation for this case. How this relates to POST. My
assumption (not being an expert on the topic) is that there were reasons for
making the client pick the unique URI for the CalDAV and CardDAv
applications.
2. In section 3.2.1 "A PROPFIND/allprop request SHOULD NOT return this
property ". Is there a case where PROPFIND/allprop request may return this
property or did you mean "SHALL NOT"
3. I noticed that you asked the RFC editor to remove appendix A and B.
What about the Index.
Roni Even
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf