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

Hi Julian!

I apologize for not responding to your comments made during the 2nd  
last call (the last call specifically on the topic of the downref),  
but I can assure you we (Cyrus, Bernard and I) didn't ignore those  
comments, nor would we ever do that intentionally.  You've made many  
useful comments that have been helpful to the quality of this spec.

I do err on the side of not repeating what's already been said, in  
response to issues that have already been raised.  As you know, we  
don't always agree on the resolution to every issue, even if we value  
having them brought up.

Thanks,
Lisa

On Aug 28, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I notice that a new draft of CalDAV has been published (<http:// 
> www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dusseault-caldav-14.txt>), but  
> that the Last Call comments in the email I'm replying to here  
> (<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/ 
> msg43094.html>) have been ignored.
>
> Now my understanding of an IESG Last Call is that the comments are  
> collected, reviewed, replied to and that optimally problems pointed  
> out are addressed. That doesn't seem to be the case here.