--On July 16, 2010 2:55:42 PM -0700 Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
1) the document contains a section discussing the registration of caldev
and caldevs (Sec 3); a corresponding section for carddev and carddevs
should be added.
As noted in the fourth paragraph of the introduction, the CardDAV service
types have been defined in [I-D.ietf-vcarddav-carddav] currently in the RFC
2) the IANA recommendation that these four service names be added as
aliases to http and https (correspondingly) does not seem correct. If
these are indeed aliases, then this specification should recommend the
use of either "http" or "https" (correspondingly) in the SRV records,
without the need for new names. However, I believe the intent is that the
caldev and/or carddev servers could exist on other ports than the typical
web server; as such, they should be registered as service names (as per
the existing SRV registry, e.g.), NOT as aliases in either the SRV
registry (which has no such concept) or the IANA ports table.
I.e., these new names should be registered as service names, not as
aliases. This should be sufficient for the purposes of this document.
In [I-D.ietf-vcarddav-carddav], after much debate with the IESG and the
associated working group, the approach of registering the service types as
aliases was agreed upon as a stop gap measure until the IANA SRV registry
is setup. draft-daboo-srv-caldav follows that same approach.
3) The use of a required URI suffix (/carddev or /caldev) seems to be too
fixed. draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd (intended as standards track)
indicates a way to embed this information in the a TXT record with the
same DNS name as the SRV record; RFC 5507 represents the IAB
(informational) position that most additional information should be
included in new RR types (though it's unclear this could easily support
URI suffixes). My concern is that this document does neither; it embeds
this information in this document as a requirement, rather than
presenting it as a configurable option with a default. I would prefer to
see the latter (regardless of how), to indicate the URI suffix if not the
'default' as specified in this document.
RFC5785 defines the .well-known URI - I think it is very clear that, given
that CalDAV and CardDAV are in effect web-services, making use of
.well-known is the right thing to do. There is no need for any additional
data in the DNS. What is more, the .well-known approach is in fact useful
in the absence of SRV - it can minimise the information users would have to
enter. I don't see this approach as being "too fixed" - the whole point
about .well-known is to fix things like this.
Ietf mailing list