I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
_http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_).
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-18.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 05/03/2007
IESG Telechat date: 8 March 2007
Summary:
All my significant issues with -17 have been fixed in -18, and I believe this is
ready to go for PS.
There are a couple of residual consistency points that can be cleaned up in RFC
Editing - see below. The 'allprop' one is significant and needs fixing IMO.
Comments:
Treatment of 'allprop': Appendix F.1 is now consistent with s9.1 regarding
which properties are returned by 'allprop', but the wording of the definition in
s14.2 is still inconsistent in that it does not mention properties defined in
other documents. I think that s14.2 should also make a requirement that 'other
documents' explicitly say whether a property is to be returned with 'allprop'.
The examples in 9.1.5 and s9.1.6 also fail to state the possibility of returning
properties defined in other documents - I suggested that the example in s9.1.6
could be used to illustrate this.
s21 IANA Considerations:
I believe that it would be helpful to clarify that this is a formalization of
previous registrations spread across RFC 2518, RFC 4229 and RFC 4395. IANA
therefore needs to update the references but not register anything new.
My original comment was:
The various items here do not require new registrations as they were
all registered as a result of RFC 2518 (and RFC 4229). This document
updates the registrations (and in a sense formalizes them since RFC 2518
did not have an IANA Considerations section explicitly). s21.1 should
refer to RFC 4395 which controls the URI Scheme registry. s21.3 should
refer to RFC 4229 which formalized the initial state of the message
header field registrations. It occurs to me that I did not check if
there are any message headers which were in RFC 2518 but are now dropped
- if so this should probably be recorded here.
Potential security implications of lockdiscovery: This issue was fixed by a
change to s15.8. I think it would be useful to flag this in s6.8 by adding the
phrase "subject to security and privacy constraints" to the end of the first
sentence. Consideration should also be given to changing the title of s20.4 to
"Security and Privacy Issues Connected to Locks".
s9.2: I thought that the term 'document order' was going to be removed as it
isn't clear what it means. (It might be clearer to an XML afficionado).
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
