Hi Alexey:
My point wasn't about whether the procedure should be optional or
mandatory. My comment was related to the difficulties to understand
whether it was a procedure that implementations should provide compliance
or not, due to the mixture of normative statements with the word
"Guidelines".
So, if there is a strong recommendation to implement the procedure, then
I have no problem to change the OPTIONAL to RECOMMENDED, if that is the
spirit of the specification.
/Miguel
On 16/09/2010 10:15, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
Hi Cyrus.
Hi Miguel,
I was discussing with Cyrus one of the changes that you and him agreed
upon and I have to say that I don't feel comfortable with it:
On 08/09/2010 16:38, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
--On September 8, 2010 3:25:49 PM +0200 "Miguel A. Garcia"
<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
- Section 6. The title of the section contains the word
"Guidelines". To
me, the word Guideline indicates a suggestion, or pure informative
text.
So, I am surprise to see quite a lot of normative text (see bullet
points
2, 4, etc.). This makes me think that the title is not accurate, and
perhaps you should talk about "Procedures" rather than "Guidelines".
I think the Section title was changed to Procedures.
I don't want to "insist" that all clients or servers do things
exactly in
the way proscribed. There could be reasons for following slightly
different
approaches (e.g. when out-of-band forms of authentication are used).
That
said changing "Guidelines" to "Procedures" is fine given that the first
paragraph makes it clear that this procedure is optional.
I understand your comment, I can accept it.
I actually think that making this optional is too weak. Implementations
don't need to claim conformance to this document, so it is already
optional to implement. But I think that *if* they claim conformance,
they should implement autoconfiguration as described. In particular they
need to retrieve SRV/TXT records and use .well-known if TXT record is
not available.
IMHO, doing anything less would affect interoperability and might defeat
the purpose of this document.
- Section 6, first paragraph, the text reads:
This section describes a procedure that CalDAV or CardDAV
clients MAY
use to do their initial configuration based on minimal user input.
This is a relative clause. I don't like to have normative statements
("MAY") in relative clauses, because normative part of it becomes
diluted. If you still want to have normative MAY, split the sentence
into
two. My recommendation, you don't need normative, and the "MAY"
should be
written in lower case.
As mentioned in the answer to the previous issue, I want to make it
clear
that the procedure being described is not required. So how about:
This section describes a procedure that CalDAV or CardDAV clients
can
use to do their initial configuration based on minimal user
input. This
procedure is OPTIONAL, clients can use alternative methods to
accomplish
the appropriate configuration steps.
Your proposal looks very good.
See my comments above. Personally I would prefer to go the other way and
change the original MAY to SHOULD.
Any objections?
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
