Feedback on draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-01, Re: [VCARDDAV] I-D Action:draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-01.txt

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feedback on draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-01, Re: [VCARDDAV] I-D Action:draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-01.txt

Julian Reschke

Hi,

I just checked, and it appears my comments for draft -00 really haven't
been considered yet:
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vcarddav/current/msg00496.html>.
Please do so.

On reading -01, I found one other issue: when using extended MKCOL, is
it required to specify DAV:collection in the resource type? It appears
irrelevant (as the resource always will be a collection) -- I don't have
any specific preference, but it could be good to clarify that in order
to avoid interop problems.

Besides that, I found mainly editorial issues (sent privately to Cyrus),
such as:

1) too generic references (I prefer when a spec tells the reader which
secton to visit), and

2) RFC-Editor nits (unexpanded abbreviations, text talking about "this
proposal" instead of "this specification", Title Case in Section Titles)
-- I think it's good to have them resolved as early as possible -- the
less changes the RFC Editor needs to do, the better (speaking from
experience :-).

BR, Julian