Re: WebDAV sync informal last call

Hi Cyrus,

Here are my comments:

Section 3.2

A resource must appear only once. What happens when there is more than one b=
inding for a resource? Should only one of those bindings be reported? If so,=
 should always the same binding be reported (perhaps the client knows he res=
ource under a specific name)? The latter would have a significant impact on a=
 server implemenation.

Section 3.3 (last paragraph)

When some collection can't be synchronized the status code 405 is put in its=
 DAV:response. However, this would imply the REPORT method is not allowed fo=
r the resource, while it is only this report type that isn't. Wouldn't the s=
tatus code 403 be more appropriate in this case?

The paragraph ends by saying that such a fact should be reported only once. W=
hat is to be reported then for this resource when the same report is request=
ed a second time?

Section 3.5.1

second paragraph:

This paragraph states that when a resource is deleted and a new one is creat=
ed using the same URI only a changed resource should be reported. However, t=
his would imply a relationship between the deleted and the newly created res=
ource. This is in contradiction with the BIND-spec, because the resource-id p=
roperty would be different. In other words, no such relationship exists. I t=
hink a deletion and a creation should be reported in this case. If the same r=
esource is rebound to the same URI nothing should be reported.

Remark:

Resources for which the properties or the contents have been updated since t=
he last synchronization and which hence have a changed getlastmodifed proper=
ty are not reported as changed. This means the methods PUT and PROPPATCH hav=
e no impact on the result of the report.

Best regards,

Werner Donn=C3=A9.

--
http://www.pincette.biz/
Handling your documents with care, wherever you are.

Op 07 Apr 2011 om 16:00 heeft Cyrus Daboo <[email protected]> het volgende ge=
schreven:

> Hi folks,
> It is our intent to submit draft-daboo-webdav-sync-05 to the IETF. As such=
 we would appreciate it if you could give this one final review and post com=
ments back to this list (including "ok to go" comments) so we can show the A=
Ds that review has been done by various WebDAV experts.
>=20
> BTW there are already several client and server implementations of this dr=
aft now and I believe most implementors are happy with what we have done.
>=20
> --=20
> Cyrus Daboo
>=20
>=20