Document: draft-reschke-webdav-post-06
Reviewer: Roni Even
Review Date: 2010-04-12
IETF LC End Date: 2010-05-07
IESG Telechat date: (if known):

Summary: This draft is roughly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.

I have three nits of which I am not sure since I am reading this draft 
without the entire context.

Nits comments:

   1. In the abstract there is the following paragraph:  “On the other 
hand, WebDAV-based protocols such as the Calendar Extensions to 
WebDAV (CalDAV) frequently require clients to pick a unique URL, although 
the server could easily perform that task.”  This is also mentioned in 
the introduction.  I am not sure why is this mentioned here and if there 
is a specific recommendation for this case. How this relates to POST.  
My assumption (not being an expert on the topic) is that there were 
reasons for making the client pick the unique URI for the CalDAV and 
CardDAv applications.
   2. In section 3.2.1 “A PROPFIND/allprop request SHOULD NOT return 
this property “. Is there a case where PROPFIND/allprop request may 
return this property or did you mean “SHALL NOT”
   3. I noticed that you asked the RFC editor to remove appendix A 
and B. What about the Index.