- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:38:02 +0100
- 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 UTC