ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: 'Calendaring Extensions to WebDAV (CalDAV)' to Proposed Standard (draft-dusseault-caldav)

2006-08-29 06:25:43


Julian Reschke wrote:
Bernard Desruisseaux schrieb:
Julian Reschke wrote:

With respect to draft 14, I notice that the reference to RFC2518bis has been downgraded to RFC2518 (which I don't object to), but that references *into* RFC2518 now use broken section numbers (as they haven't been updated accordingly).

Hi Julian,

I'm sorry but all references into RFC2518 have been updated accordingly
as far I can tell. Am I missing something?

1) In <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-dusseault-caldav-14.html#rfc.section.1.2>, you don't want to refer to Appendix 4 of RFC2518 as the WG consensus is that this appendix is incorrect, and for that reason it was removed in RFC2518bis.

Thanks for pointing this out.


2) In <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-dusseault-caldav-14.html#rfc.section.5.2.1> you refer to Section 12.4.1, which in RFC2518 describes the DAV:source property. The equivalent of 12.4.1 in RFC2518bis does not exist in RFC2518, so you can't refer to it (thus you may have to either repeat it, or refer to RFC3253 or RFC3744 instead). Same for subsequent references to that Section.

Actually, the draft is making reference to "Section 12.14.1 of [RFC2518]"
which describes the DAV:allprop XML element. Previously, the draft was
making reference to "Section 14.2 of [I-D.ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis]" which
also describes the DAV:allprop XML element. I believe we are fine here.

Thanks,
Bernard


Hope this helps,

Julian



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf