W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: [VCARDDAV] [caldav] new webdav sync draft

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:38:02 +0100
Message-ID: <4B06D3FA.8050904@gmx.de>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
CC: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, caldav@ietf.org, Arnaud Quillaud <Arnaud.Quillaud@Sun.COM>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, vcarddav@ietf.org
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> ...
>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4918.html#rfc.section.21.1>:
>>
>> "Creation of identifiers in the "DAV:" namespace is controlled by the 
>> IETF."
>>
>> So it's not relevant whether something is generic. What's important is 
>> that there's IETF consensus to add new names to the namespace.
>>
>> I'm not saying this can't be the case here, but I think the proper way 
>> would be to start with a proposal in a custom namespace, and then 
>> switch to the DAV: namespace once it's clear that consensus has been 
>> achieved.
> 
> This sounds like a question to bring during IETF LC. If the document 
> fails to reach IETF consensus, then the prefix can be changed.
> Unless you are concerned about early implementations of the draft.
> ...

Not sure.

What you say makes it sound as if any document published by the IETF can 
use the DAV: namespace; I think the intent of RFC 4918 was something 
else (but I may be misinterpreting it): the default extension point for 
WebDAV (both in RFC 4918 and 2518) is to put extensions into a 
*different* namespace.

So far we have made exceptions in cases where the specs actually started 
as WG deliverables (redirect, search, or bind), were proposed by another 
WG (MKCOL extension), or were a *really* minor extension to an existing 
WebDAV spec (WebDAV Current Principal Extension).

The concern about early implementations is there as well, of course.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 20 November 2009 17:38:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 20 November 2009 17:38:43 GMT