IANA Considerations, was: [VCARDDAV] vcarddav WGLC on draft-ietf-vcarddav-{carddav,mkcol}

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

IANA Considerations, was: [VCARDDAV] vcarddav WGLC on draft-ietf-vcarddav-{carddav,mkcol}

Julian Reschke
Marc Blanchet wrote:

> Hi,
>  This is the working group last call for the following two documents:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-carddav-05
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-03
>
> Please provide any comments to the wg mailing list
> (mailto:[hidden email]) by March 9th 2009, 23h00 GMT.
>
> Regards,
>  Marc and Kurt, vcarddav wg chairs

A few comments with respect to the IANA Considerations
(<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-carddav-06#section-14>):

1) The references style, as in

   "... defined by RFC4918 [RFC4918] for ..."

looks a bit weird (artifact from a time when this document used numeric
references?)

2) The statement:

    "All other IANA considerations mentioned in RFC4918 [RFC4918] also
    apply to this document."

is very misleading; RFC 4918's IANA Considerations talk about URI scheme
registrations, HTTP header registrations, and HTTP status code
registrations. None of this is relevant to CardDAV, so just drop the
sentence.

3) I also found the statement below confusing:

   "XML: None.  Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification."

Proposal: just state:

   "XML: None - not applicable for namespace registrations".

BR, Julian




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VCARDDAV] IANA Considerations, was: vcarddav WGLC on draft-ietf-vcarddav-{carddav, mkcol}

Cyrus Daboo-2
Hi Julian,

--On March 12, 2009 3:46:07 PM +0100 Julian Reschke <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> A few comments with respect to the IANA Considerations
> (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vcarddav-carddav-06#section-14>):
>
> 1) The references style, as in
>
>    "... defined by RFC4918 [RFC4918] for ..."
>
> looks a bit weird (artifact from a time when this document used numeric
> references?)

Agreed - fixed.

> 2) The statement:
>
>     "All other IANA considerations mentioned in RFC4918 [RFC4918] also
>     apply to this document."
>
> is very misleading; RFC 4918's IANA Considerations talk about URI scheme
> registrations, HTTP header registrations, and HTTP status code
> registrations. None of this is relevant to CardDAV, so just drop the
> sentence.

Yup that was a little odd. I have changed the section to simply:

    This document uses a URN to describe a new XML namespace conforming to
    the registry mechanism described in [RFC3688].

> 3) I also found the statement below confusing:
>
>    "XML: None.  Namespace URIs do not represent an XML specification."
>
> Proposal: just state:
>
>    "XML: None - not applicable for namespace registrations".

Changed.

--
Cyrus Daboo