Re: [VCARDDAV] Synchronization: experimental RFC?

[Florian Zeitz <[e-mail]>]

On 2010-04-06 15:17 Simon Perreault wrote:
> WG,
> 
> Is the section on synchronization (section 7) experimental? Should it be
> moved to a separate RFC with experimental status? It has never been
> implemented. See section 7.2.5 in particular...
> 
> It would be easy for me to do so if that is the working group's
> consensus, so I don't care. (Actually, it would potentially result in a
> higher RFC count for me, so I do care!)
> 
> Simon

Personally, I think it's worth splitting. The topic of Section 7 and the
rest of the RFC is very different and it would be nice to be able to
change one without affecting the other. The section also seems (as I
have not worked on this I don't feel qualified to make any other
statement) more experimental and vague than the rest of the document to me.

As a side note, I think that everything that is in 7.2 as an example
should also be explained/defined in 7.1 (referring to section 7.2.5 in
particular).

Florian