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

Hi, below are last call comments, interleaved with the spec text. Best regards, Julian -- Section 1., para. 2: Discussion of this specification is taking place on the mailing list . [[anchor2: Clarify that this paragraph

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

Hi, I notice that a new draft of CalDAV has been published (), but that the Last Call comments in the email I'm replying to here () have been ignored. Now my

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

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 references *into* RFC2518 now use broken section numbers (as they haven't been updated accordingly). Hi Julian, I'm sorry but all ref

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

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 references *into* RFC2518 now use broken section numbers (as they haven't been updated accordingly). Hi

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

Julian Reschke wrote: 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 references *into* RFC2518 now use broken section numbers (as they haven't been u

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

Bernard Desruisseaux schrieb: 2) In 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 (t

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

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 t

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

Cyrus Daboo schrieb: Section 1.2., para. 3: The XML declarations used in this document do not include namespace information. Thus, implementers MUST NOT use these declarations as the only way to create valid CalDAV properties or to validate CalDAV XML element type. [[anchor

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

On 8/29/06, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Section 5.3.4., para. 4: >> >> >> In the case where the data stored by a server as a result of a PUT >> request is not equivalent by octet equality to the submitted >> calendar >> object resource, the behavior of the ETag res

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

Hi Julian, --On August 29, 2006 9:17:11 AM +0200 Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: FYI Many of your comments were addressed in -14, several of the others (outdated references) etc will be fixed by the RFC editor. I apologize that we did not reply to you original message to let you kno

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

Robert Sayre schrieb: Why can't the CalDAV spec note the ambiguity with Etags and move on? I don't think it's appropriate for this document add semantics to the general purpose ETag header with a MUST NOT, since "calendar object resource" is meaningless from a general HTTP perspective. also conc

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

Julian Reschke schrieb: 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 references *into* RFC2518 now use broken section numbers (as they haven't been u

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

Julian, Everything we were originally planning to take care with notes to the RFC Editor has been dealt with in draft -15... except this one. Sorry and thanks for pointing this out again. We will make sure the RFC Editor changes the text to no longer make reference to Appendix 4 of RFC 2518. Th

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

On 8/28/06, Bernard Desruisseaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm sorry but all references into RFC2518 have been updated accordingly as far I can tell. Am I missing something? The interesting point was this one: There may be more new problems I currently don't have time to check for, and I'm