The identifier is a name for the issue (and is unique within this document).
The type of issue is one of:
The status of the issue is one of:
The reference is an indication of where the issue was first raised.
The description is a succinct overview of the issue.
The resolution describes the specification change that resolves the issue.
| Identifier | Type / Status | Reference and Description | Resolution / Latest Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11_ED_RFC2279 |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001711.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-03: Replace [UTF-8] by [RFC2279] for consistency. |
in revision 13: Reference name changed both in text and references section to RFC3629 (update of RFC2279). |
| 15_acknowledgments |
edit closed |
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2004-04-18: Don't list J. Reschke under Acknowledgments since he was moved to the Authors list anyway. | in revision latest: |
| 1_ref_options |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001718.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-04: "Client discovery of access control capability using OPTIONS is described in Section 7.1." The reference should be to "7.2". |
in revision 13: Replaced "7.1" with "7.2" |
| 3.12_ED_bad_reference |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001712.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-03: section 3.12 talks about "defined above in Sections 3.1-3.9". I think this should be "defined above in Sections 3.1-3.11" or simply "defined in above sections" geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com, 2003-11-06: For the section 3.12 issue, I'd prefer to change it to say "Sections 3.1-3.10" (the DAV:all privilege from section 3.11 should not be included in another privilege). |
in revision 13: Replace "Sections 3.1-3.9" by "Sections 3.1-3.10". |
| 3.2_ED_RFC2518 |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001711.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-03: Fix references ("[WEBDAV]") to RFC2518. |
in revision 13: Replaced "[WEBDAV]" by "[RFC2518]". |
| 3.3_ED_priv_section_titles |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001741.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-07: Section titles for DAV:write-properties, DAV:write-content and DAV:unlock missing word "Privilege". |
in revision 13: Added "Privilege" to the section titles (no change tracking). |
| 3.4_write-content-description |
change closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001757.html> csharp@mac.com, 2003-11-18: If DAV:write-content is just an aggregate of DAV:bind and DAV:unbind why doesn't it state that "the client can safely expect that no other privilege needs to be granted to have access to MKCOL,PUT, DELETE,MOVE, COPY"? If it is not an aggregate why does it exist? |
in revision 13: Update description of DAV:write-content so that it doesn't refer to collection membership; clarify the distinction between PUT to an existing reource (modifying content) and PUT on an unmapped URI (creating a new resource, requiring privileges on the parent collection). Define aggregation of DAV:bind and DAV:unbind in 3.12. |
| 4.1_ED_RFC2589 |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001711.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-03: text quotes RFC2589 ("Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3): Extensions for Dynamic Directory Services"), but references section has RFC2251 ("Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3)") geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com, 2003-11-06: The LDAP reference should be RFC2251 (not RFC2589). |
in revision 13: Replaced "[RFC2589]" by "[RFC2251]". |
| 5.1.2_responsedescription |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001737.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-07: Add DAV:error element to DAV:responsedescription in example and update explanation. |
in revision 13: DAV:error subelement added to DAV:responsedescription in response. |
| 5.1_owner_group_details |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001737.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-07: State that DAV:owner and DAV:group MAY be protected. Also state that they MAY be empty if the server can't provide the information. |
in revision 13: Added paragraphs stating both for both properties. |
| 5.1_owner_href_optional |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001728.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-06: href element should be optional in case the server doesn't have owner information. |
in revision 13: Updated DTD fragment. |
| 5.5.1_principal_property |
change closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2004-March/001790.html> stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de, 2004-03-08: The DAV:property principal requires some clarification: 1) is it required that a DAV:property principal, set by a client, will be reported as DAV:property principal by the server? Or, putting it another way, is the server allowed to "resolve" a DAV:property principal on set and report on that ACE the resolved principal *at the time of ACE update*? I think the server should not be allowed to do that and has to report DAV:property principals back. 2) Is every server expected to support DAV:property principals as described in 1)? That should be a "no", unless we allow resolving principals on updating ACL. 3) How is a client supposed to learn about support of DAV:property principals in the server? One thing is to define a precondition DAV:property-principal to be used in response bodies. More desirable would be a DAV:unsupported-principals property, which could list DAV:property or even DAV:unauthorized to be not supported by the server. We are very late in the process. I think adding another precondition should not be a problem, if we can agree. |
in revision latest: No change. Explanation: 1) The server is not allowed to do that and has to report DAV:property principals back. 2) Servers do not have to support this. 3) Use the DAV:allowed-principals precondition. |
| 5.5.2_TYPO |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-October/001691.html> peter.nevermann@softwareag.com, 2003-10-22: Precondition DAV:no-invert should refer to section 5.5.2 for the DAV:no-invert constraint ... not 6.3.4. |
in revision 13: Reference fixed. |
| 5.5.5_ED_section_numbering |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001712.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-03: missing section numbering for "Example: Retrieving DAV:acl-restrictions" |
in revision 13: Added section number (no change tracking). |
| 5.7_inherited-acl-set-protected |
change closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2004-April/001815.html> eric.sedlar@oracle.com, 2004-04-16: Based on http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2004-April/001814.html, does anyone object if we change section 5.7, which currently reads .... to remove the second word "protected" here, to allow for more flexibility for server implementers? We can probably do this before the RFC is published. |
in revision latest: (revised) No change due to concerns changing the spec at this point of time. Possibly add to a future errata list. |
| 5.8_unbind |
change closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001714.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-03: A:unbind: mismatch between XML response and privilege tree in figure. eric.sedlar@oracle.com, 2003-11-04: The change in the XML response should be rolled back. "delete" is a custom privilege in the example. |
in revision 13: Changed example response back to use A:delete. |
| 6_ED_RFC3010 |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001711.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-03: Fix references ("[NFSV4]") to RFC3010. |
in revision 13: Replaced "[NVSV4]" by "[RFC3530]" (which obsoletes RFC3010). |
| 6_group_property |
change closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001713.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-03: in section 6 the following example is used...: <D:principal><D:property><D:group/></D:property></D:principal> However, there is no such thing as a DAV:group property. I'm not sure what the best fix for this would be... If the "group" thing is essential, this may mean that an important live property is missing? If it's not essential, can this example rewritten without that property? (Or with a non-DAV: property from an example namespace?) geoffry.clemm@us.ibm.com, 2003-11-06: Proposal to add DAV:group property. eric.sedlar@oracle.com, 2003-11-06: I have a problem with adding this property. If a particular vendor wants to add <vendor:group> that's great, but I think we are going to have minimal interoperability with this. We discussed this before and weren't able to find anyone who actually wanted to use this. |
in revision 13: Added section 5.2 ("DAV:group"). Subsequent sections renumbered. |
| 9.4_ED_reference_casemap |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001711.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-03: Update [CaseMap] reference to "[UNICODE4] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard - Version 4.0", Addison-Wesley, August 2003. ISBN 0321185781" (section 5.18). |
in revision 13: Removed "[CaseMap]" from references, add "[UNICODE]" to references. Cite using '...especially Section 2.3 ("Caseless Matching"), Section 5.18, Subsection "Caseless Matching"...'. |
| 9.4_error_marshalling |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2004-January/001786.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2004-01-09: Remove the paragraph about error marshalling vs failed properties because it refers to semantics that were removed between draft 10 and 11. |
in revision latest: Agreed. |
| A_ED_appendices |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001712.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-03: Appendices should indeed be appendices, not a regular section (see draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis). |
in revision 13: Moved Section 19.1 to Appendix A and Section 19.2 to Appendix B. |
| ED_artwork_line_width |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001712.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-03: In request/responses/DTDs, the line width sometimes exceeds what's allowed in an RFC (I think 72 characters). |
in revision 13: Added line breaks and/or changed indention in some of the figures (no change tracking). |
| ED_authors_list |
edit closed |
geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com, 2003-11-06:
Remove Anne Hopkins from authors list (keep her name in the Acknowledgements section).
geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com, 2003-12-20: Add Julian Reschke to authors list. |
in revision 13: Removed Anne Hopkins from authors list (both in front page and in "authors" section). Added Julian Reschke to authors list. |
| ED_example_host_names |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001719.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-06: When changing the host names, we forgot to also update user names that appear in "Authorization" headers (such as "gclemm@webdav.org"). I'd recommend to just replace "@webdav.org" with "@example.com". Also fix broken realms (always say "users@example.com"). |
in revision 13: All realms changed to "users@example.com". |
| ED_non_ASCII |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001712.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-03: some non-ASCII characters (long dashes and quotes) are present |
in revision 13: Fixed in Sections 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 6, 7.1.1. |
| ED_references_names |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001711.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-03: Replace "Informative References" by "Informational References". |
in revision 13: Section title renamed from "Informative References" to "Informational References" (no change tracking). |
| ED_RFC2386 |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001711.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-03: RFC2386 is listed, but not mentioned in the spec. |
in revision 13: Entry RFC2386 removed from references (no change tracking). |
| ED_xml_typos |
edit closed |
Reference: <http://mailman.webdav.org/pipermail/acl/2003-November/001712.html> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2003-11-03: There were a few typos in the XML examples |
in revision 13: Several XML message bodies fixed (no change tracking). |
| ref_XML |
edit closed |
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2004-04-19: Update XML reference to XML 1.0, Third Edition, and XML Infoset reference to XML-IS, Second Edition. | in revision latest: |
| rfc-editor |
edit editor |
rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, 2004-04-16: (umbrella issue for changes made by RFC Editor) | latest change in revision latest |
| typo |
edit editor |
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2004-01-09: (umbrella issue for typos) | latest change in revision latest |
| Version | Issues |
|---|---|
| latest | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |
| 13 | |||||||||||||||||||||||| |
Last change: 2004-04-19