Re: [apps-discuss] Applications Directorate Review of draft-desruisseaux-caldav-sched-11

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-03-08 11:40, Eliot Lear wrote:
> ...
>>    This document inherits, and sometimes extends, DTD productions from
>>    Section 14 of [RFC4918].
>
> I would reword- "This document inherits and extends DTD productions..."
>
> If so, should this specification update RFC4918 in rfc-index.txt?

This is similar to other specs building on WebDAV, and we haven't done 
that (saying "updates") before.

> §2.1.1, pg 11, and similar text in §2.2.1, pg 13, §2,4,1, pg 14, and
> similar:
>
>>    PROPFIND behavior:  This property SHOULD NOT be returned by a
>>       PROPFIND allprop request (as defined in Section 14.2 of
>>       [RFC4918]).
>
> Why SHOULD NOT and not MUST NOT?  How should the client interpret the
> information, if returned?

SHOULD NOT is right; returning it does no harm. Also, it's consistent 
with other WebDAV specs. Having SHOULD NOT in one place and MUST NOT 
somewhere else would be awkward.

> Throughout:
>
> Tables should be numbered for reference.

If this is supposed to be a general rule, I would object to it. It's a 
matter of style, and thus should be discussed in the RFC style manual, 
if it ever gets updated.

Best regards, Julian