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

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:15:19 +0200

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.

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). There may be more new problems I 
currently don't have time to check for, and I'm not sure what sense that 
would make if last-call comments are ignored anyway.

Frustrated, Julian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Bernard Desruisseaux <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:53:13 -0400

Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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?

Cheers,
Bernard

---

From: "Robert Sayre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:24:44 -0400

The interesting point was this one:

>> There may be more new problems I currently don't have time to check
>> for, and I'm not sure what sense that would make if last-call
>> comments are ignored anyway.

-- 

Robert Sayre

"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:04:03 +0200

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 

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.

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.

Hope this helps,

Julian

---

From: Bernard Desruisseaux <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:16:34 -0400

> that this appendix is incorrect, and for that reason it was removed in 

Thanks for pointing this out.

> 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

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:27:35 +0200

> Actually, the draft is making reference to "Section 12.14.1 of [RFC2518]"

Right, sorry.

> also describes the DAV:allprop XML element. I believe we are fine here.

Yes, but the difference here is that RFC2518bis changed the meaning of 
DAV:allprop from "all properties" to "all dead properties and the live 
properties defined by RFC2518bis". Thus, if CalDAV doesn't want its live 
properties to be returned, it can't say "DAV:allprop as defined by 
RFC2518"...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:48:13 -0700

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.
>
> collected, reviewed, replied to and that optimally problems pointed  
> out are addressed. That doesn't seem to be the case here.