IETF Logo Mail Archive

[VCARDDAV] draft-ietf-vcarddav-carddav: should support for vCard 4.0 be recommended?

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Tue, 01 September 2009 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: vcarddav@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vcarddav@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F9728C61C for <vcarddav@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.504
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D4bLi6MORaAP for <vcarddav@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 978F628C581 for <vcarddav@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [92.40.125.177] (92.40.125.177.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.125.177]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <Sp2EnQB9YXtC@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 21:31:30 +0100
Message-ID: <4A9D8490.90807@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:31:12 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, CardDAV <vcarddav@ietf.org>
References: <4A888C37.50400@isode.com> <4A888FEF.4070701@isode.com> <A1B0D39DCAA502CB4FE572FB@socrates.local> <4A9D557A.3050905@isode.com> <46F6B54FB97EDFC2555E8CF3@caldav.corp.apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <46F6B54FB97EDFC2555E8CF3@caldav.corp.apple.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [VCARDDAV] draft-ietf-vcarddav-carddav: should support for vCard 4.0 be recommended?
X-BeenThere: vcarddav@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF vcarddav wg mailing list <vcarddav.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav>, <mailto:vcarddav-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vcarddav>
List-Post: <mailto:vcarddav@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vcarddav-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav>, <mailto:vcarddav-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:31:18 -0000

Cyrus Daboo wrote:

> Hi Alexey,
>
> --On September 1, 2009 6:10:18 PM +0100 Alexey Melnikov 
> <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
>
>>> I have just posted draft -08 that contains all the changes listed
>>> here. Hopefully this is now ready for IESG last call?
>>
>> I didn't hear answer to my main question: why is this document requiring
>> support for vCard 3.0 and not for vCard 4.0?
>
> It needs to support both. Legacy vCard data will be around for a long 
> time and we don't know how quickly clients will adopt it. We have 
> CardDAV implementations already using vCard 3 so I think that is 
> strong justification for keeping it as-is.

The document as written says that support for vCard 3 is a MUST and 
doesn't say anything about [I-D.ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev], apart for 
saying it is "in works". I feel this is a bit weak.

I would really like to hear clear consensus from the WG that either this 
should stay as is, or that [I-D.ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev] should be a SHOULD.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email