Subject: Agenda for WebDAV meeting, 58th IETF

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:21:15 -0800

WebDAV WG
Meeting 1530-1730, Rochester room

Agenda
 - Review ACL status - to RFC
 - Brief Interop results discussion
 - Discuss bindings and redirects drafts & plans
 - RFC2518bis issues
	- Do namespace prefixes need to be preserved
	- Review requirements for ETags
	- Plans?  Milestones?
 - Quota draft - plans, milestones?

Lisa Dusseault

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 12:57:53 +0100

>  - Discuss bindings and redirects drafts & plans

I'll not be able to attend the meeting, but here's a status update on 
redirect refs...:

- the latest submitted draft is 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-06.html> 
(October 2003)

- the latest edits are here: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-redirectref-protocol-latest.html>

The main remaining issues are listed at after the TOC:

- get rid of MKRESOURCE if favor of a simpler method that can only 
create redirect reference resources; this should also allow to *update* 
redirect reference resources (with a new target)

- allow authoring of 301s as well,

- finish the synchronization between RFC2518bis and the redirect ref 
spec on how PROPFIND should behave when a collection contains redirect 
references

- almost all other issues are editorial or about terminology -- 
proposals how to resolve these (replacement text!) are welcome

Another issue that's not listed yer:

- COPY applied to a collection containing redirect refs currently is 
specified not to copy the redirects (unless the client explicitly 
specifies that using "Apply-To-Redirect-Ref"). Thus, non-redirect-ref 
aware clients will always get a 207 (that is, only a partial success) 
when attempting the COPY. We should consider allowing he COPY to succeed 
if the server is able to recreate an equivalent redirect reference at 
the target.

 >  - Quota draft - plans, milestones?

Note that I sent an issues list one week ago 
(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003OctDec/0140.html>), 
I haven't seen any feedback since.

 > Lisa Dusseault

Regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

---

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 07:32:48 -0500

WRT to the open redirect issues:

> redirect reference resources (with a new target)

I agree.

> - allow authoring of 301s as well,

I agree.

> spec on how PROPFIND should behave when a collection contains redirect 

Are there issues here, or is this just editorial?

> proposals how to resolve these (replacement text!) are welcome

Probably the best thing here is to start a thread on these issues,
along with your current proposed solution, so we can bring them to
closure.

> if the server is able to recreate an equivalent redirect reference at 

I agree.  We should just state this.

Cheers,
Geoff

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 13:40:22 +0100

> Julian wrote on 11/06/2003 06:57:53 AM:

...

> Are there issues here, or is this just editorial?

I'd say almost editorial. However it would be welcome if someone who was 
part of the WG during the '2000 last call could make suggestions for 
replacement text (or alternatively state why we don't need to make a 
change).

> I agree.  We should just state this.

OK, so we'll say that if a non-referencing-protocol aware client issues 
a COPY, the redirect references should be copied as well (instead of 
leaving them out and producing 302 status entries in the multistatus).

Julian