Subject: Thoughts on revising RFC3253 (Delta-V) and RFC3744 (ACL)

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 15:02:08 +0200

Hi,

now that BIND and SEARCH are in the IESG's hand, it seems to be a good 
opportunity to discuss whether and how to proceed.

The oldest spec (after RFC2518) is RFC3253 (Delta-V). Revising RFC3253 
mainly would consist of...:

- Updating references & taking care of things that have been moved into 
RCF2518bis (pre/postconditions and DAV:error)

- Resolving open issues collected at 
<http://www.webdav.org/deltav/protocol/rfc3253-issues-list.htm>

Judging from mailing list traffic, the more important spec however is 
RFC3744 (ACL). The list of things that needs to be done is similar to 
RFC3253, although there seem to be more open issues 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-rfc3744bis-issues.html>).

Looking at spec dependencies, many other specs rely on RFC3253 for

1) the definition of pre/postconditions and DAV:error (now in RFC2518bis)

2) feature discovery (DAV:supported-method-set and 
DAV:support-live-property-set)

3) the REPORT method, and the DAV:expand-property report.

It seems to me that for future work, 2) and 3) should be moved into one 
or two separate documents, with the goal to include that stuff into a 
revision of the base protocol (RFC2518bis).

To me, this sounds like we should

a) keep collecting and resolving issues in RFC3253 and RFC3744 (I will 
move over the information from 
<http://www.webdav.org/deltav/protocol/rfc3253-issues-list.htm> into a 
draft for RFC3253bis if nobody objects)

b) extract the feature discovery stuff from RFC3253 into a new spec 
(WebDAV extensions for resource feature discovery)

c) extract the REPORT method definition into a new spec (The WebDAV 
RFEPORT method)

And then, once we're done with b) and c), start revising either RFC3253 
or RFC3744 first.

Feedback appreciated.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 10:28:40 -0400

Sounds good to me.  I'm tempted to put feature-discovery and REPORT into a 
single document, to avoid a proliferation of small documents, but either 
way is OK with me.

Cheers,
Geoff