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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

On 3/8/12 1:35 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.

Great.  What's the client behavior if it sees it?

>
>> 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.

No it's not.  It's for internal referencing.

Eliot