Hi Julian,
Thanks for the review. Comments inline.
On 05/14/2017 10:23 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Reviewer: Julian Reschke
Review result: Not Ready
Document: draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments-02
IETF LC End Date: 2017-05-14
IESG Telechat date: 2017-05-25
This document describes attachment handling in CalDAV (WebDAV based
calendaring).
The mechanism described by this document is essential RPCish, using
HTTP POST for tunneling. It will work in practice, but it definitively
isn't state of the art in IETF protocols, in particular in an
otherwise WebDAV/CalDAV-based ecosystem.
Major issues:
The main issue with this specification is that it
1) models operations on attachments as POST operations, where the
actual type of operation is specified using a query parameter, instead
of using the HTTP methods POST, PUT, and DELETE.
The resource being acted upon is an actual calendar resource, which is
already in place. The attachments are meta-data associated with one or
more calendar resources, which is why a POST is used on the calendar
resource to manipulate an attachment. Can you explain how you would
envision different HTTP methods be used to add/update/delete an
attachment associated with a calendar resource?
2) hardwires specific query strings into the protocol, violating a
MUST level requirement in BCP 190 (see
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7320#section-2.4):
Applications MUST NOT directly specify the syntax of queries, as this
can cause operational difficulties for deployments that do not
support a particular form of a query. For example, a site may wish
to support an application using "static" files that do not support
query parameters.
Which part(s) of the query syntax MUST not be specified? The entire
thing? Just the keywords? Did RFC 7808 get this wrong, or is URI
templating ok?
Re 1) this is even called out specifically in Sections 3.8 (update)
and 3.9 (remove), but it's not clear at all why that is the case.
Re 2) Part of the hard-wiring could be avoided by using different HTTP
methods for the different actions. The other parameters could be made
discoverable using URIs / URI templates, exposed as WebDAV properties,
as is the case in RFC 5995.
As above, can you explain how different HTTP methods would be used where
the target of the add/update/remove operation is an existing calendar
resource?
5.1. Cal-Managed-ID Response Header Field
This doesn't seem to address the points listed in
<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7231.html#considerations.for.new.header.fields>
(and it wouldn't be needed if the attachment would be modeled as an
HTTP resource whose values could be reported back in a Location header
field upon creation).
Can parameters be added to a Location header field (it doesn't appear
so), or are you suggesting that the managed-id value be encoded in the
URI-reference value?
Minor issues:
3.12.4. Processing Time
Clients can expect servers to take a while to respond to POST
requests that include large attachment bodies. Servers SHOULD use
the "102 (Processing)" interim response defined in Section 10.1 of
[RFC2518] to keep the client connection alive if the POST request
will take significant time to complete.
While discussing the new code 103 in the HTTP WG, we considered
interop problems with existing code that doesn't handle 1xx status
codes at all, or had problems with status codes other than 100. I
personally support use of new 1xx status codes, but it would be good
to hear whether the WG considered deployment problems when making this
a SHOULD-level requirement.
Existing implementations of this CalDAV extension all seem to handle 1xx
status codes.
--
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University