HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)
RFC 4918

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 18 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

INTRODUCTION, paragraph 14:
>    RFC2518 was published in February 1999, and this specification makes
>    minor revisions mostly due to interoperability experience.

  Would add a half-sentence saying that this obsoletes 2581.

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) Yes

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection

From Gen-ART review by Elwyn Davies. The first point in particular
should be attended to if the document is updated for other reasons.

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).

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) Recuse

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) Recuse

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Record

This requires UTF-16 support without a normative definition.  While this can be resolved by an indirect reference through the XML normative reference, the document would be improved by a direct reference to ISO 10646 and mention of the XML requirement to include a BOM at the beginning of a UTF-16 XML document.