Binding Extensions to Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)
RFC 5842

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 27 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2009-08-13)
No email
send info
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.

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2009-06-04)
No email
send info
The WG LC was not correct in that it was done as a LC for a WG doc not an individual doc.

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2009-06-03 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
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'.

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2009-06-03)
No email
send info
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-----------------+
  |                       |
  +-----------------------+

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2009-06-04 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
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.

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) Abstain

Abstain ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info