Using POST to Add Members to Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) Collections
draft-reschke-webdav-post-08

[Ballot comment]
Hi, a few comments:
1) I really dislike the style, with "Note:" and "Note that" strewn throughout. Just write it.
2) Ther eis an editorial note in the abstract. If you want this removed on publication, why not remove it when you make the publication request rather than making the RFC editor do it?
3) s/As a matter of fact,//
4) s/Note that//g
5) the last paragraph in section 1 sounds like sour grapes. This is not necessary.

[Ballot discuss]
1) in section 2, it discusses the properties and preconditions that are reserved for use by the IETF, and says the WebDav community agrees with the approach. Why not do this through a WG?
2) in 3.2.1 s/SHOULD NOT/MUST NOT/  ??

[Ballot comment]
Hi, a few comments:
1) I really dislike the style, with "Note:" strewn throughout. Just write it.
2) Ther eis an editorial note in the abstract. If you want this removed on publication, why not remove it when you make the publication request rather than making the RFC editor do it?
3) s/As a matter of fact,//
4) s/Note that//g
5) the last paragraph in section 1 sounds like sour grapes. This is not necessary.

[Ballot comment]
This is pretty nitty, but I'd like to see the reference after HTTP/WebDAV and XML in the security considerations:

OLD:

Security considerations applicable to HTTP/WebDAV and XML apply for
this specification as well, namely, [RFC4918] (Section 20) and
[RFC3470] (Section 7).

NEW:

Security considerations applicable to HTTP/WebDAV [RFC3744] and XML
[XML] apply for this specification as well, namely, [RFC4918]
(Section 20) and [RFC3470] (Section 7).

  (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  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  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.
     
      No 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, the references are split. All Normative references are to published RFCs. There are no downrefs.

  (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?
     
      No IANA actions are required.

  (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 "Add Member" extension adds the ability for a client to create a resource on a server by using a POST request on the collection that is to contain the resource. This avoids the need for the client to choose a resource name for the new resource.

      Working Group Summary

This is not a WG document. However discussion has taken place on the WebDAV mailing list over the time the document has evolved. Additional interested groups (CardDAV and CalDAV) have been cc'd on discussions as needed.

      Document Quality

Several implementations of this specification are eager to implement the specification (mostly calendar/vcard related).

Please work with Peter St-Andre or Alexey to revive this draft -- it never got a shepherd writeup, so I never did a solid review of it.