Subject: extend production

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:25:38 -0700

Where is the BNF for the 'extend' production, used in section 9.1 of  
2518 -
    DAV = "DAV" ":" "1" ["," "2"] ["," 1#extend]

I searched 2518 and 2068 with no luck.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Jim Luther <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:07:52 -0700

The 2518 bis draft has the BNF for that. It's:

       DAV             = "DAV" ":" #( compliance-code )
       compliance-code = ( "1" | "2" | "bis" | extend )
       extend          = Coded-URL | token

- Jim

On Aug 22, 2005, at 12:25 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>
> Where is the BNF for the 'extend' production, used in section 9.1  
> of 2518 -

---

From: Joachim Feise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:56:51 -0700

> I searched 2518 and 2068 with no luck.

Undefined in 2518, see http://www.webdav.org/wg/rfcdev/issues.htm #49.
It is defined in the current draft:
http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-07.html

-Joe

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:57:57 -0700

Thanks to both you and Jim; that's what I needed.

BTW, if 2518 is undergoing revision, the HTTP header registrations  
should be updated (or made; I think I see a new one in there?); see  
RFC3864/BCP90.

Cheers,

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:33:10 +0200

>       extend          = Coded-URL | token

In fact, this is one of these changes where a fix (extend) has been 
combined with a *change* (compared to RFC2518). I'm not really opposed 
to that change, but I'd really prefer is these kinds of changes would 
indeed be discussed on the mailing list...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:34:24 +0200

> should be updated (or made; I think I see a new one in there?); see  

As a matter of fact, this also applies to BIND and REDIRECT. Cullen, 
should I do that for BIND right away (I don't think we'll need another 
WGLC for that...).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:56:29 +0200

> should I do that for BIND right away (I don't think we'll need another 

Speaking of BIND: this draft only contains an update for the "DAV" 
header 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-12.html#dav.request.header>). 
Furthermore, RFC2518bis is expected to duplicate this extension. Thus it 
seems to me that we don't need to add any templates here.

The situation for REDIRECT is different; it introduces two new headers; 
thus I'll update the draft accordingly.

Best regards, Julian