Subject: RE: redirect references resource bodies (draft 02)

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:26:59 -0500

I agree this is a bug in the protocol.  I would
suggest getting rid of section 6.2, or at least
changing it to say that it will "add a body to the
redirect reference.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian F. Reschke [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:44 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: redirect references resource bodies (draft 02)

Hi,

the redirect references draft says that a redirect reference resource may
have a body:

<http://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol
-02.html#rfc.section.4.p.5>.

However, MKRESOURCE will create empty resources:

<http://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol
-02.html#rfc.section.5.1.p.9>,

and PUT with Apply-To-Redirect-Ref header set will replace the redirect ref
resource by a regular resource:

<http://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol
-02.html#rfc.section.6.2>.

So, how can I create a redirect ref *with* a body?

Julian

---

From: "Julian F. Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:53:44 +0200

Hi,

Geoff has also pointed me to

http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/webdav/collection/redirect-issues.html

which of course had this issue already listed.

However, the content of this document seems to indicate that the redirect
draft will change drastically (when the next comes out), for instance it
seems that MKRESOURCE will go away completely and will be replaced by MKREF.

Yes, I am aware of the fact that Internet Drafts are work-in-progress.
However, I am currently adding experimental redirect ref support to a WebDAV
server and would like to get some opinions about what's the best way to
proceed:

a) use draft 02, taking clarifications from the issues list where feasible,

b) implement a vendor-specific method (which then would be replaced by
whatever the next draft defines)?

Or is there a preliminary version of the next draft which could be used as a
better implementation guideline?

Julian

> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 8:27 PM
> Subject: RE: redirect references resource bodies (draft 02)
>
>

Julian

---

From: "Jim Whitehead" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:27:29 -0800

> However, I am currently adding experimental redirect ref support
> to a WebDAV server and would like to get some opinions about what's the
best way to
> a) use draft 02, taking clarifications from the issues list where

This is my recommendation.

> whatever the next draft defines)?

Please don't!

> Or is there a preliminary version of the next draft which could
> be used as a better implementation guideline?

There is not, at present, another draft underway.

- Jim