Re: [VCARDDAV] [caldav] new webdav sync draft

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> ...
>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4918.html#rfc.section.21.1>:
>>
>> "Creation of identifiers in the "DAV:" namespace is controlled by the 
>> IETF."
>>
>> So it's not relevant whether something is generic. What's important is 
>> that there's IETF consensus to add new names to the namespace.
>>
>> I'm not saying this can't be the case here, but I think the proper way 
>> would be to start with a proposal in a custom namespace, and then 
>> switch to the DAV: namespace once it's clear that consensus has been 
>> achieved.
> 
> This sounds like a question to bring during IETF LC. If the document 
> fails to reach IETF consensus, then the prefix can be changed.
> Unless you are concerned about early implementations of the draft.
> ...

Not sure.

What you say makes it sound as if any document published by the IETF can 
use the DAV: namespace; I think the intent of RFC 4918 was something 
else (but I may be misinterpreting it): the default extension point for 
WebDAV (both in RFC 4918 and 2518) is to put extensions into a 
*different* namespace.

So far we have made exceptions in cases where the specs actually started 
as WG deliverables (redirect, search, or bind), were proposed by another 
WG (MKCOL extension), or were a *really* minor extension to an existing 
WebDAV spec (WebDAV Current Principal Extension).

The concern about early implementations is there as well, of course.

Best regards, Julian