Update SabreDAV from 1.8.9 to 1.8.10.

1 files changed, 0 insertions, 451 deletions

diff --git a/vendor/sabre/dav/docs/rfc5785.txt b/vendor/sabre/dav/docs/rfc5785.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index c28ccf6bf..000000000
--- a/vendor/sabre/dav/docs/rfc5785.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,451 +0,0 @@
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                     M. Nottingham
-Request for Comments: 5785                               E. Hammer-Lahav
-Updates: 2616, 2818                                           April 2010
-Category: Standards Track
-ISSN: 2070-1721
-
-
-        Defining Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)
-
-Abstract
-
-   This memo defines a path prefix for "well-known locations",
-   "/.well-known/", in selected Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
-   schemes.
-
-Status of This Memo
-
-   This is an Internet Standards Track document.
-
-   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
-   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
-   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
-   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
-   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
-
-   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
-   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
-   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5785.
-
-Copyright Notice
-
-   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
-   document authors.  All rights reserved.
-
-   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
-   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
-   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
-   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
-   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
-   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
-   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
-   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
-   described in the Simplified BSD License.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Nottingham & Hammer-Lahav    Standards Track                    [Page 1]
-
-RFC 5785                Defining Well-Known URIs              April 2010
-
-
-Table of Contents
-
-   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
-     1.1.  Appropriate Use of Well-Known URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
-   2.  Notational Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
-   3.  Well-Known URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
-   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
-   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
-     5.1.  The Well-Known URI Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
-       5.1.1.  Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
-   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
-     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
-     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
-   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
-   Appendix B.  Frequently Asked Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
-
-1.  Introduction
-
-   It is increasingly common for Web-based protocols to require the
-   discovery of policy or other information about a host ("site-wide
-   metadata") before making a request.  For example, the Robots
-   Exclusion Protocol <http://www.robotstxt.org/> specifies a way for
-   automated processes to obtain permission to access resources;
-   likewise, the Platform for Privacy Preferences [W3C.REC-P3P-20020416]
-   tells user-agents how to discover privacy policy beforehand.
-
-   While there are several ways to access per-resource metadata (e.g.,
-   HTTP headers, WebDAV's PROPFIND [RFC4918]), the perceived overhead
-   (either in terms of client-perceived latency and/or deployment
-   difficulties) associated with them often precludes their use in these
-   scenarios.
-
-   When this happens, it is common to designate a "well-known location"
-   for such data, so that it can be easily located.  However, this
-   approach has the drawback of risking collisions, both with other such
-   designated "well-known locations" and with pre-existing resources.
-
-   To address this, this memo defines a path prefix in HTTP(S) URIs for
-   these "well-known locations", "/.well-known/".  Future specifications
-   that need to define a resource for such site-wide metadata can
-   register their use to avoid collisions and minimise impingement upon
-   sites' URI space.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Nottingham & Hammer-Lahav    Standards Track                    [Page 2]
-
-RFC 5785                Defining Well-Known URIs              April 2010
-
-
-1.1.  Appropriate Use of Well-Known URIs
-
-   There are a number of possible ways that applications could use Well-
-   known URIs.  However, in keeping with the Architecture of the World-
-   Wide Web [W3C.REC-webarch-20041215], well-known URIs are not intended
-   for general information retrieval or establishment of large URI
-   namespaces on the Web.  Rather, they are designed to facilitate
-   discovery of information on a site when it isn't practical to use
-   other mechanisms; for example, when discovering policy that needs to
-   be evaluated before a resource is accessed, or when using multiple
-   round-trips is judged detrimental to performance.
-
-   As such, the well-known URI space was created with the expectation
-   that it will be used to make site-wide policy information and other
-   metadata available directly (if sufficiently concise), or provide
-   references to other URIs that provide such metadata.
-
-2.  Notational Conventions
-
-   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
-   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
-   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
-
-3.  Well-Known URIs
-
-   A well-known URI is a URI [RFC3986] whose path component begins with
-   the characters "/.well-known/", and whose scheme is "HTTP", "HTTPS",
-   or another scheme that has explicitly been specified to use well-
-   known URIs.
-
-   Applications that wish to mint new well-known URIs MUST register
-   them, following the procedures in Section 5.1.
-
-   For example, if an application registers the name 'example', the
-   corresponding well-known URI on 'http://www.example.com/' would be
-   'http://www.example.com/.well-known/example'.
-
-   Registered names MUST conform to the segment-nz production in
-   [RFC3986].
-
-   Note that this specification defines neither how to determine the
-   authority to use for a particular context, nor the scope of the
-   metadata discovered by dereferencing the well-known URI; both should
-   be defined by the application itself.
-
-   Typically, a registration will reference a specification that defines
-   the format and associated media type to be obtained by dereferencing
-   the well-known URI.
-
-
-
-Nottingham & Hammer-Lahav    Standards Track                    [Page 3]
-
-RFC 5785                Defining Well-Known URIs              April 2010
-
-
-   It MAY also contain additional information, such as the syntax of
-   additional path components, query strings and/or fragment identifiers
-   to be appended to the well-known URI, or protocol-specific details
-   (e.g., HTTP [RFC2616] method handling).
-
-   Note that this specification does not define a format or media-type
-   for the resource located at "/.well-known/" and clients should not
-   expect a resource to exist at that location.
-
-4.  Security Considerations
-
-   This memo does not specify the scope of applicability of metadata or
-   policy obtained from a well-known URI, and does not specify how to
-   discover a well-known URI for a particular application.  Individual
-   applications using this mechanism must define both aspects.
-
-   Applications minting new well-known URIs, as well as administrators
-   deploying them, will need to consider several security-related
-   issues, including (but not limited to) exposure of sensitive data,
-   denial-of-service attacks (in addition to normal load issues), server
-   and client authentication, vulnerability to DNS rebinding attacks,
-   and attacks where limited access to a server grants the ability to
-   affect how well-known URIs are served.
-
-5.  IANA Considerations
-
-5.1.  The Well-Known URI Registry
-
-   This document establishes the well-known URI registry.
-
-   Well-known URIs are registered on the advice of one or more
-   Designated Experts (appointed by the IESG or their delegate), with a
-   Specification Required (using terminology from [RFC5226]).  However,
-   to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication, the
-   Designated Expert(s) may approve registration once they are satisfied
-   that such a specification will be published.
-
-   Registration requests should be sent to the
-   wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org mailing list for review and comment,
-   with an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request for well-known URI:
-   example").
-
-   Before a period of 14 days has passed, the Designated Expert(s) will
-   either approve or deny the registration request, communicating this
-   decision both to the review list and to IANA.  Denials should include
-   an explanation and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the
-
-
-
-
-
-Nottingham & Hammer-Lahav    Standards Track                    [Page 4]
-
-RFC 5785                Defining Well-Known URIs              April 2010
-
-
-   request successful.  Registration requests that are undetermined for
-   a period longer than 21 days can be brought to the IESG's attention
-   (using the iesg@iesg.org mailing list) for resolution.
-
-5.1.1.  Registration Template
-
-   URI suffix:  The name requested for the well-known URI, relative to
-      "/.well-known/"; e.g., "example".
-
-   Change controller:  For Standards-Track RFCs, state "IETF".  For
-      others, give the name of the responsible party.  Other details
-      (e.g., postal address, e-mail address, home page URI) may also be
-      included.
-
-   Specification document(s):  Reference to the document that specifies
-      the field, preferably including a URI that can be used to retrieve
-      a copy of the document.  An indication of the relevant sections
-      may also be included, but is not required.
-
-   Related information:  Optionally, citations to additional documents
-      containing further relevant information.
-
-6.  References
-
-6.1.  Normative References
-
-   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
-             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
-
-   [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L.  Masinter, "Uniform
-             Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
-             RFC 3986, January 2005.
-
-   [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
-             IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
-             May 2008.
-
-6.2.  Informative References
-
-   [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter,
-             L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer
-             Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
-
-   [RFC4918] Dusseault, L., "HTTP Extensions for Web Distributed
-             Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)", RFC 4918, June 2007.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Nottingham & Hammer-Lahav    Standards Track                    [Page 5]
-
-RFC 5785                Defining Well-Known URIs              April 2010
-
-
-   [W3C.REC-P3P-20020416]
-             Marchiori, M., "The Platform for Privacy Preferences 1.0
-             (P3P1.0) Specification", World Wide Web Consortium
-             Recommendation REC-P3P-20020416, April 2002,
-             <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/ REC-P3P-20020416>.
-
-   [W3C.REC-webarch-20041215]
-             Jacobs, I. and N. Walsh, "Architecture of the World Wide
-             Web, Volume One", World Wide Web Consortium
-             Recommendation REC- webarch-20041215, December 2004,
-             <http:// www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215>.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Nottingham & Hammer-Lahav    Standards Track                    [Page 6]
-
-RFC 5785                Defining Well-Known URIs              April 2010
-
-
-Appendix A.  Acknowledgements
-
-   We would like to acknowledge the contributions of everyone who
-   provided feedback and use cases for this document; in particular,
-   Phil Archer, Dirk Balfanz, Adam Barth, Tim Bray, Brian Eaton, Brad
-   Fitzpatrick, Joe Gregorio, Paul Hoffman, Barry Leiba, Ashok Malhotra,
-   Breno de Medeiros, John Panzer, and Drummond Reed.  However, they are
-   not responsible for errors and omissions.
-
-Appendix B.  Frequently Asked Questions
-
-   1. Aren't well-known locations bad for the Web?
-
-      They are, but for various reasons -- both technical and social --
-      they are commonly used and their use is increasing.  This memo
-      defines a "sandbox" for them, to reduce the risks of collision and
-      to minimise the impact upon pre-existing URIs on sites.
-
-   2. Why /.well-known?
-
-      It's short, descriptive, and according to search indices, not
-      widely used.
-
-   3. What impact does this have on existing mechanisms, such as P3P and
-      robots.txt?
-
-      None, until they choose to use this mechanism.
-
-   4. Why aren't per-directory well-known locations defined?
-
-      Allowing every URI path segment to have a well-known location
-      (e.g., "/images/.well-known/") would increase the risks of
-      colliding with a pre-existing URI on a site, and generally these
-      solutions are found not to scale well, because they're too
-      "chatty".
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Nottingham & Hammer-Lahav    Standards Track                    [Page 7]
-
-RFC 5785                Defining Well-Known URIs              April 2010
-
-
-Authors' Addresses
-
-   Mark Nottingham
-
-   EMail: mnot@mnot.net
-   URI:   http://www.mnot.net/
-
-
-   Eran Hammer-Lahav
-
-   EMail: eran@hueniverse.com
-   URI:   http://hueniverse.com/
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Nottingham & Hammer-Lahav    Standards Track                    [Page 8]
-