Re: [calsify] WGLC for draft-ietf-calext-subscription-upgrade

[Michael Douglass <[e-mail]>]

On 11/19/19 11:20, Michael Douglass wrote:
> 5. Header Field: Sync-Token
>>>    The value MUST be a URI.
>> Why is this a URI? It's unclear to me the purpose of that, especially
>> given the spec says:
> because it has to be in WebDAV sync (perhaps a point to consider in 
> jscalendar). Anything can be turned into a data URI. As to why it's a 
> URI in WebDAV sync maybe the authors can tell us (or maybe the spec does)
>>> Client MUST not attempt to interpret the data URI value.
>> Shouldn't this just be an opaque string?
>>
It's in section 3.2 of webdav sync

   The synchronization token itself MUST be treated as an "opaque"
    string by the client, i.e., the actual string data has no specific
    meaning or syntax.  However, the token MUST be a valid URI to allow
    its use in an If precondition request header (seeSection 5  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6578#section-5>).  For
    example, a simple implementation of such a token could be a numeric
    counter that counts each change as it occurs and relates that change
    to the specific object that changed.  The numeric value could be
    appended to a "base" URI to form the valid sync-token.

>>      
>>      
>
> On 11/5/19 21:09, Daniel Migault wrote:
>>
>> This email starts a WGLC for the 
>> document draft-ietf-calext-subscription-upgrade [1]. In order to move 
>> the document forward, please review the document and state your 
>> opinion or comments until Tuesday November 19.
>>
>> Note that given the history of the document, it is important to show 
>> the IESG the document is supported by the WG.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Bron and Daniel
>>
>> [1] 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-subscription-upgrade/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> calsify mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify