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

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@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf