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:
- 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.
- 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”
- I noticed that you asked
the RFC editor to remove appendix A and B. What about the Index.
Roni Even
|
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf