Binding Extensions to Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)
draft-ietf-webdav-bind-27

[Ballot comment]
Comment fixed
Teenie nit...
Section 14
    and other members of the WebDAV working group.
But there is no WG.
Say...
    and other subscribers to the WebDAV mailing list.

[Ballot discuss]
Clearing this Discuss on the basis of the following note about v25 from Alexey...
  An alternative idea was proposed to make this an accepted erratum for
  RFC 2616, the resolution for which would be incorporated by HTTPBIS
  WG at their own pace.
===

Adding a Discuss back in as part of the IESG Discussions.

The referenced IANA registry *currently* states

  Values to be added to this name space SHOULD be subject to review
  in the form of a standards track document within the IETF
  Applications Area.  Any such document SHOULD be traceable through
  statuses of either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates' to the Draft Standard
  for HTTP/1.1.

The HTTPBIS WG is currently debating relaxing this requirement.
This is fine, but at the moment, *this* document must either have "Updates 2616", or a normative reference to the I-D that will update the registry.

(I am slightly nervous about the normative reference in case the content of the document that updates the registry does not deliver the way we expect.)

[Note]: 'Cyrus Daboo (cyrus at daboo dot name) is the document shepherd. This is an individual submission despite the draft name, as the WebDAV WG has closed.
' added by Alexey Melnikov

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments
in the "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code Registry -- Per [RFC2817]" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes

Value Description Reference
----- ---------------------------------- ---------
208 Already Reported [RFC-webdav-bind-25]
506 Loop Detcted [RFC-webdav-bind-25]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.

[Ballot discuss]
Appendix A has an experimental document  that did not have WG consensus making substantial changes to a PS standard that did have WG consensus. I do not think this is acceptable.

I would also like to discuss when ex chairs of old WG should recuse on a document. I have not yet decided if I need to recuse on this one or not and I'm looking for advice on that.

[Ballot discuss]
Adding a Discuss back in as part of the IESG Discussions.

The referenced IANA registry *currently* states

  Values to be added to this name space SHOULD be subject to review
  in the form of a standards track document within the IETF
  Applications Area.  Any such document SHOULD be traceable through
  statuses of either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates' to the Draft Standard
  for HTTP/1.1.

The HTTPBIS WG is currently debating relaxing this requirement.
This is fine, but at the moment, *this* document must either have "Updates 2616", or a normative reference to the I-D that will update the registry.

(I am slightly nervous about the normative reference in case the content of the document that updates the registry does not deliver the way we expect.)

[Ballot comment]
Comment fixed
Teenie nit...
Section 14
    and other members of the WebDAV working group.
But there is no WG.
Say...
    and other subscribers to the WebDAV mailing list.

[Ballot discuss]
Adding a Discuss back in as part of the IESG Discussions.

The referenced IANA registry *currently* states

  Values to be added to this name space SHOULD be subject to review
  in the form of a standards track document within the IETF
  Applications Area.  Any such document SHOULD be traceable through
  statuses of either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates' to the Draft Standard
  for HTTP/1.1.

The WebDAV WG is currently debating relaxing this requirement.
This is fine, but at the moment, *this* document must either have "Updates 2616", or a normative reference to the I-D that will update the registry.

(I am slightly nervous about the normative reference in case the content of the document that updates the registry does not deliver the way we expect.)

[Ballot comment]
The Security Considerations section has a textual reference to the considerations for
HTTP/1.1 and WebDAV, but does not indicate which RFCs contain those considerations.
It would be helpful to readers if there were explicit references added for 2616, 3744
and 4918 at that point in the text.

[Ballot discuss]
I think we need to talk about what consensus means in the context of this document. This is not a WG document the WG was closed. One of the reasons the WG was closed was that it could not come to consensus on this document.

This document makes significant normative changes to a PS document that did reach WG consensus. I don't recall the WG every reaching consensus to make the change in Appendix A.

I would also like to discuss when ex chairs of old WG should recuse on a document. I have not yet decided if I need to recuse on this one or not and I'm looking for advice on that.

The Last Call was too short and claimed it was a WG draft.

We need to talk about how to proceed here.

After discussing this further we Julian, we agreed that the document doesn't need to say "Updates: 2616, 4918". Extensions typically don't update RFCs that specify a base protocol being extended, especially if such protocol properly defines extensions points.

[Note]: 'Cyrus Daboo (cyrus at daboo dot name) is the document shepherd. This is an individual submission despite the draft name, at the WebDAV WG has closed.
' added by Alexey Melnikov

[Ballot discuss]
I think we need to talk about what consensus means in the context of this document. This is not a WG document the WG was closed. One of the reasons the WG was closed was that it could not come to consensus on this document.

This document makes significant normative changes to a PS document that did reach WG consensus. I don't recall the WG every reaching consensus to make the change in Appendix A.

I would also like to discuss when ex chairs of old WG should recuse on a document. I have not yet decided if I need to recuse on this one or not and I'm looking for advice on that.

We need to talk about how to proceed here.

[Ballot comment]
The document provides some discussion of the ramifications of simple loops, but its not immediately obvious that the recommendations for handling them are sufficient for dealing with more complex loops. Are there additional issues introduced when each added level of depth adds an exponentially growing number of elements?

(view in fixed width)
        +---------+
        | root    |
        |        |
        |  start  |
        +---------+
            |
            v
        +---------+          +---------+
  +---->| C1      |          | C2      |<---+
  |  +->|        |          |        |<-+ |
  |  |  | a    b  |          | a    b  |  | |
  |  |  +---------+          +---------+  | |
  |  |    |    |              |    |    | |
  |  |    |    |          +----+    |    | |
  |  |    |    |          |        |    | |
  |  |    |    +----------c---+    |    | |
  |  |    |              |  |    |    | |
  |  |    |    +----------+  |    |    | |
  |  |    v    v              v    v    | |
  |  |  +---------+          +---------+  | |
  |  |  | C3      |          | C4      |  | |
  |  |  |        |          |        |  | |
  |  |  | a    b  |          | a    b  |  | |
  |  |  +---------+          +---------+  | |
  |  |    |    |              |    |    | |
  |  +----+    |          +----+    +-----+ |
  |            |          |                |
  |            +----------c-----------------+
  |                      |
  +-----------------------+

[Ballot discuss]
I have one issue to discuss with the IESG before progressing this document.

The intended status for this document is Experimental, but it is updating an existing P.S. RFC. Is this the right way to capture this update?

[Ballot comment]
Comment has been resolved...

-----
I don't understand the example in section 2.3.2.  How would the COPY operation update any bindings and affect the contents of R3?  If I understand the semantics as described in section 9.8.4 of RFC 4918, the result of the copy would result in deletion of the bindings in C2 to Resource C3, the deletion of C2, creation of a new C1 in CollY containing bindings x.gif and y.gif to new resources R1' and R2'.

[Ballot comment]
I don't understand the example in section 2.3.2.  How would the COPY operation update any bindings and affect the contents of R3?  If I understand the semantics as described in section 9.8.4 of RFC 4918, the result of the copy would result in deletion of the bindings in C2 to Resource C3, the deletion of C2, creation of a new C1 in CollY containing bindings x.gif and y.gif to new resources R1' and R2'.

[Ballot discuss]
Two minor issues. The first easily resolved in the document. The second needs discussion with your AD.

The referenced IANA registry states

  Values to be added to this name space SHOULD be subject to review
  in the form of a standards track document within the IETF
  Applications Area.  Any such document SHOULD be traceable through
  statuses of either 'Obsoletes' or 'Updates' to the Draft Standard
  for HTTP/1.1.

Dodging the quesiton of the interpretation of "SHOULD" in a registry,
I only see "updates 4918". Following the trail...
4918 obsoletes 2518
2518 doesn't update or obsolete anything.
So I think you need to add "Updates 2616"

===

Appendix A is an odd place to hide an important correction to RFC 4918.
I see that an Erratum to this effect has been raised but not verified.
Perhaps we can it verified and then delete this appendix?

[Ballot comment]
Teenie nit...
Section 14
    and other members of the WebDAV working group.
But there is no WG.
Say...
    and other subscribers to the WebDAV mailing list.

[Note]: 'Cyrus Daboo (cyrus at daboo dot name) is the document shepherd.

This is an individual submission despite the draft name, at the WebDAV WG has closed.
' added by Alexey Melnikov

IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignments in the HTTP Status Code Registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes

Value Description Reference
----- ---------------------------------- ---------
208 Already Reported [RFC-webdav-bind-23]
506 Loop Detected [RFC-webdav-bind-23]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.

Shepherd write-up for: draft-ietf-webdav-bind-23
Intended status: Experimental

  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
      and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
      for forwarding to the IESG for publication?
     
      Cyrus Daboo (mailto:cyrus@daboo.name>) is shepherding this document. The document is ready for forwarding to the IESG.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
      the interested community and others?  Does the Document Shepherd
      have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
      have been performed?
     
      This document has been discussed and reviewed on the WebDAV (w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org) mailing list.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
      security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
      internationalization or XML?
     
      No concerns.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
      issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
      and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he or
      she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
      concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any event, if
      the interested community has discussed those issues and has
      indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
      those concerns here.
     
      Some concern has been expressed about the interaction with WebDAV ACL - but publishing as Experimental satisfies those concerns.

  (1.e)  How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
      this document?  Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
      individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
      community as a whole understand and agree with it?
     
      The document has been specifically reviewed by a few individuals. There has been open discussion on the mailing list.

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
      discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
      separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
      should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
      entered into the ID Tracker.)
     
      No discontent.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
      document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
      http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
      http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are not
      enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document met all
      formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media
      type and URI type reviews?

Yes.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
      informative?  Are there normative references to documents that are
      not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
      If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their
      completion?  Are there normative references that are downward
      references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If so, list these downward
      references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure
      for them [RFC3967].
     
      Yes.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
      consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
      the document?  If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
      reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries?  Are the
      IANA registries clearly identified?  If the document creates a new
      registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the
      registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations?
      Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry?  See
      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis].  If the document
      describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the
      Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed
      Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
     
      IANA actions to register two new HTTP status codes are described.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
      BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
      automated checker?
     
      Yes.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
      Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
      Announcement Writeup?  Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
      announcement contains the following sections:

      Technical Summary

        The WebDAV BIND extensions adds the ability for a client to create different "bindings" between URIs and resources on a WebDAV server. This is similar to file system "hard linking" or "aliases". Clients can also discover bindings on the server even in cases where they cannot create them. Additionally this specification clarifies some aspects of RFC3253 (Delta-V) that rely on the BIND model.

      Working Group Summary

        Discussion has taken place on the WebDAV mailing list over a long period of time as the document has evolved. There have been three "informal" last calls on the document during this time.

      Document Quality

        Several implementations of this specification already exist (Apache Jackrabbit, Apache Slide, SAP Netweaver KM). Additionally Java Content Repository (JCR) 2.0 ('shareable nodes' feature) and Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) ('multifiling' feature) specs both specify identical concepts which need BIND in order to be exposed via WebDAV. Discussion of how this extension might be used in CalDAV and CardDAV to implement "shared" calendars or address books is also on-going.