Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-05

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi, Julian,

I agree with your point here (on how RFC 2119 works). I thought the document would be clearer with 2119 language here, but it should not be included if you aren't comfortable using it.

Thanks,

Spencer


Spencer Dawkins wrote:
...
3.  WebDAV extended MKCOL

  The WebDAV MKCOL request is extended to allow the inclusion of a
  request body.  The request body is an XML document containing a
  single DAV:mkcol XML element as the root element.  The Content-Type

Spencer (minor): if I'm reading this paragraph correctly, I'd suggest "The request body is an XML document that MUST contain a single DAV:mkcol XML element as the root element" here - the last sentence in this paragraph makes me think the requirement is normative, but it doesn't look normative to 2119 scanners :-)
...

-0.5

As far as I can tell, it is a myth that things can only be normative when using RFC 2119 keywords. As a matter of fact, RFC 2119 points out:

6. Guidance in the use of these Imperatives

   Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care
   and sparingly.  In particular, they MUST only be used where it is
   actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has
   potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions)  For
   example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method
   on implementors where the method is not required for
   interoperability.


So I'd prefer document authors to be more conservative in using those terms...

BR, Julian

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]