More issues available for review in editor's draft: accept-post and options

issue-80 Accept-Post  ... we'll need someone who will be here in summer to 
put this through the IETF review process (we should hold off until we're 
pretty sure we have all of them drafted though, like at LC draft ... I 
vaguely remember we might have a second one somewhere in the queue of 
resolutions, but not really sure).  [1] has the process details, not very 
scary + we're following an existing RFC's text modulo s/patch/post/* so 
there should be less than average to go wrong.
... anyone reviewing -80 you can just search on -80, you will get multiple 
hits.  There was a bit of ambiguity in the record (should vs must) so I 
drafted it as Should in the header registration (identical to 
accept-patch) and Must in the LDPC section 5.4.13 so it's symmetric to 
patch (where RFC 5789 says the header is a Should, and LDP says LDP 
Servers Must expose it).

issue-32 MUST support options.  So Raul/Miguel, heads up.

I also note that some of our F2F resolutions make requirements on OPTIONS 
responses (only) that I do not think have the same level of Should/Must on 
HEAD responses, but I drafted as things were minuted.  So to the degree 
people care about that form of symmetry, bring up issues if needed.


Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario