Re: [calsify] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments-03: (with COMMENT)

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Cyrus,

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017, at 02:18 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 
> > On Aug 16, 2017, at 6:02 PM, Cyrus Daboo <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Ben,
> > 
> > --On August 16, 2017 at 3:16:44 PM -0700 Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> >> - 3.12.2: "Access to the managed attachments store in a calendar object
> >> resource    SHOULD be restricted to only those calendar users who have
> >> access to    that calendar object either directly, or indirectly (via
> >> being an    attendee who would receive a scheduling message)."
> >> 
> >> Why not MUST? When might it make sense to allow others to access
> >> attachments?
> > 
> > Well there are several different ways in which a calendar user might have access to another calendar users' data - such as delegation and sharing. But perhaps that is implied by the statement above. How about (with one typo fixed too):
> > 
> >  Access to the managed attachments stored in a calendar object resource
> >  MUST be restricted to only those calendar users who are authorized to
> >  access that calendar object either directly, or indirectly (via being
> >  an attendee who would receive a scheduling message).
> 
> That works for me. (Although I would have also been happy with a SHOULD
> along with some guidance on when it might make sense to do otherwise.)
> 
> > 
> > (If the above is acceptable I will leave it to Ken to make the change since he has the "edit token". Or Alexey can add as an RFC editor note.)

I am happy with your proposal as well.