Use of the Prefer Header Field in Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)
draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-02

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Author Kenneth Murchison 
Last updated 2013-01-17
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Independent Submission                                      K. Murchison
Internet-Draft                                                       CMU
Intended status: Standards Track                        January 17, 2013
Expires: July 21, 2013

    Use of the Prefer Header Field in Web Distributed Authoring and
                          Versioning (WebDAV)
                    draft-murchison-webdav-prefer-02

Abstract

   This specification defines how the HTTP Prefer header can be used by
   a WebDAV client to request that certain behaviors be employed by a
   server while constructing a response to a successful request.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 21, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Murchison                 Expires July 21, 2013                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              Prefer in WebDAV                January 2013

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Reducing WebDAV Response Verbosity with "return=minimal" . . .  3
     2.1.  Minimal PROPFIND Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
       2.1.1.  Example: Typical PROPFIND request/response . . . . . .  4
       2.1.2.  Example: Minimal PROPFIND request/response . . . . . .  5
       2.1.3.  Example: Minimal PROPFIND request/response with an
               empty DAV:propstat element . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.2.  Minimal REPORT Response  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.2.1.  Example: Typical REPORT request/response . . . . . . .  8
       2.2.2.  Example: Minimal REPORT request/response . . . . . . . 10
     2.3.  Minimal PROPPATCH Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.3.1.  Example: Typical PROPPATCH request/response  . . . . . 12
       2.3.2.  Example: Minimal PROPPATCH request/response  . . . . . 13
     2.4.  Minimal MKCALENDAR / MKCOL Response  . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       2.4.1.  Example: Verbose MKCOL request/response  . . . . . . . 14
       2.4.2.  Example: Minimal MKCOL request/response  . . . . . . . 15
   3.  Reducing WebDAV Round-Trips with "return=representation" . . . 15
     3.1.  Example: Typical resource creation and retrieval via
           POST + GET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     3.2.  Example: Streamlined resource creation and retrieval
           via POST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   4.  The "depth-noroot" Processing Preference . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     4.1.  Example: Typical PROPFIND request/response with Depth:1  . 20
     4.2.  Example: PROPFIND request/response with Depth:1 and
           Prefer:depth-noroot  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   Appendix A.  The Brief and Extended Depth Request Header Fields  . 25
   Appendix B.  Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Appendix C.  Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
                publication)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     C.1.  Since -01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     C.2.  Since -00  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     C.3.  Since CalConnect XXIV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Show full document text