Skip to main content

Calendaring Extensions to WebDAV (CalDAV): Managed Attachments
draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments-04

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2019-05-31
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2019-05-20
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2019-05-13
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2019-03-29
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2019-03-28
04 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2019-03-28
04 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2019-03-28
04 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2019-03-28
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2019-03-28
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2019-03-28
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2019-03-28
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2019-03-28
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2019-03-28
04 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2019-03-28
04 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2019-03-28
04 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2019-03-28
04 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2019-03-28
04 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2019-03-28
04 Alexey Melnikov IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup
2019-03-25
04 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
My former DISCUSS text:

IANA Considerations need to mention that this document allows for Content-Disposition header field to be used in HTTP requests. …
[Ballot comment]
My former DISCUSS text:

IANA Considerations need to mention that this document allows for Content-Disposition header field to be used in HTTP requests. RFC 6266 only defined its use for HTTP responses.

Also, the IANA Expert Reviewer has mentioned:

I would like section 4.3. MANAGED-ID Property Parameter to clarify the scope of uniqueness of the MANAGED-ID values (e.g., globally unique like UID, unique per iCalendar component? unique per VEVENT?).
2019-03-25
04 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2019-03-25
04 Bron Gondwana Added to session: IETF-104: calext  Mon-1120
2019-03-05
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2019-03-05
04 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2019-03-05
04 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments-04.txt
2019-03-05
04 (System) New version approved
2019-03-05
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Cyrus Daboo , Ken Murchison , calext-chairs@ietf.org, Arnaud Quillaud
2019-03-05
04 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2019-01-28
03 Bron Gondwana Notification list changed to Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
2019-01-28
03 Bron Gondwana Document shepherd changed to Bron Gondwana
2018-03-23
03 Alexey Melnikov IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed
2017-09-13
03 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot discuss]
IANA Considerations need to mention that this document allows for Content-Disposition header field to be used in HTTP requests. RFC 6266 only defined …
[Ballot discuss]
IANA Considerations need to mention that this document allows for Content-Disposition header field to be used in HTTP requests. RFC 6266 only defined its use for HTTP responses.

Also, the IANA Expert Reviewer has mentioned:

I would like section 4.3. MANAGED-ID Property Parameter to clarify the scope of uniqueness of the MANAGED-ID values (e.g., globally unique like UID, unique per iCalendar component? unique per VEVENT?).
2017-09-13
03 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to Discuss from Yes
2017-08-30
03 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK
2017-08-24
03 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'Team Will not Review Version'
2017-08-24
03 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response'
2017-08-17
03 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2017-08-16
03 Adam Roach
[Ballot comment]
Regarding concerns from others on the topic of document status: even without the ARTART review, I would have DISCUSSed the top-level issues identified …
[Ballot comment]
Regarding concerns from others on the topic of document status: even without the ARTART review, I would have DISCUSSed the top-level issues identified by Julian, and in particular the hardcoding of query strings. I would be quite uncomfortable with the precedent of a PS document going out in that form. I'm a little squeamish about having it in an Informational document, but given the apparently pervasive deployment indicated by section 7, I suppose it's better to have it documented than not.

Section 3.2 is ambiguous about whether the use of "calendar-managed-attachments-no-recurrance" is in addition to or instead of "calendar-managed-attachments." In this sentence, please replace "the server MUST include" with "the server MUST also include" or "the server MUST instead include", depending on what is intended here.

I'd be happy if section 3.12.3 indicated that such redirects are performed with 307 or 308 responses, as other redirect codes change the method from POST to GET.

Presumably, when section 7 is removed, section 11.3 is to also be removed? The document should indicate this.

Please expand iTIP (iCalendar Transport-independent Interoperability Protocol) on first use.
2017-08-16
03 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adam Roach has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2017-08-16
03 Adam Roach [Ballot comment]
Please expand iTIP (iCalendar Transport-independent Interoperability Protocol) on first use.
2017-08-16
03 Adam Roach Ballot comment text updated for Adam Roach
2017-08-16
03 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
Loosely related to Mirja's comment:

The abstract mentions why this is informational. That information should be repeated in the Introduction. It would be …
[Ballot comment]
Loosely related to Mirja's comment:

The abstract mentions why this is informational. That information should be repeated in the Introduction. It would be helpful to see that expanded (in the introduction) to explain what the non-standard bits are, and if there are preferred approaches (whether standards or potential standards.)

- 3.12.2: "Access to the managed attachments store in a calendar object resource
  SHOULD be restricted to only those calendar users who have access to
  that calendar object either directly, or indirectly (via being an
  attendee who would receive a scheduling message)."

Why not MUST? When might it make sense to allow others to access attachments?
2017-08-16
03 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-08-16
03 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from Version Changed - Review Needed
2017-08-16
03 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
I also agree with Mirja on the document status.
2017-08-16
03 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-08-15
03 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-08-15
03 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Mirja's concerns / confusion on the change from PS to Informational. I read the background / shepherds write-up with explains …
[Ballot comment]
I agree with Mirja's concerns / confusion on the change from PS to Informational. I read the background / shepherds write-up with explains this, but am still not hugely comfortable with the situation -- if it is PS material, and is implemented by a number of folk, PS seems acceptable -- but then again, I fully get the desire to just get it shipped and done.

I had thought that I'd made some notes somewhere on an earlier version, but can no longer find them. I'm fairly sure that they were written on a plane heading somewhere, and were only minor nits, so...
2017-08-15
03 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2017-08-15
03 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
IANA Considerations need to mention that this document allows for Content-Disposition header field to be used in HTTP requests. RFC 6266 only defined …
[Ballot comment]
IANA Considerations need to mention that this document allows for Content-Disposition header field to be used in HTTP requests. RFC 6266 only defined its use for HTTP responses.

Also, the IANA Expert Reviewer has mentioned:

I would like section 4.3. MANAGED-ID Property Parameter to clarify the scope of uniqueness of the MANAGED-ID values (e.g., globally unique like UID, unique per iCalendar component? unique per VEVENT?).
2017-08-15
03 Alexey Melnikov Ballot comment text updated for Alexey Melnikov
2017-08-14
03 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-08-14
03 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
To be honest I find the solution to publish this as informational a bit strange given it is implemeted and deployed. However, this …
[Ballot comment]
To be honest I find the solution to publish this as informational a bit strange given it is implemeted and deployed. However, this is really not my expetise.
2017-08-14
03 Mirja Kühlewind Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-08-14
03 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-08-14
03 Alexey Melnikov IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup
2017-08-14
03 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
IANA Considerations need to mention that this document allows for Content-Disposition header field to be used in HTTP requests. RFC 6266 only defined …
[Ballot comment]
IANA Considerations need to mention that this document allows for Content-Disposition header field to be used in HTTP requests. RFC 6266 only defined its use for HTTP responses.
2017-08-14
03 Alexey Melnikov Ballot comment text updated for Alexey Melnikov
2017-08-14
03 Alexey Melnikov
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Initially, a proposed standard was requested, but due to concerns during
the IETF review regarding the use of POST HTTP method for the
purpose and use of hardcoded URI parameters, the type of RFC was changed
to informational. Authors feel that changing the draft to alleviate the concerns
would pose an incompatible change to the draft that would break multiple
existing implementations.

Therefore publication of an Informational RFC is being requested.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This specification defines an extension to the calendar access
  protocol (CalDAV) to allow attachments associated with iCalendar data
  to be stored and managed on the server. The attachments are not stored
  inline in the RFC5545 ATTACH property, but instead a link is created
  in a managed fashion.

Working Group Summary

  Version -00 was created in October 2016. As far as I can see there
  have been no major discussions on the calsify mailing list until draft
  -01 was uploaded. At this point, multiple vendors have voiced their
  support and indicated that they have implemented this draft on their
  servers.

  The document originates from draft-daboo-caldav-attachments, which was
  originally created in 2011. Since then the document has been discussed
  and developed within the CalConnect organization among relevant
  vendors in the sector.

  Some concerns were raised by ARTART reviewer about use of HTTP.
  As this specification has multiple interoperable implementations,
  the decision was made to downgrade it to Informational specification.

Document Quality
 
  Multiple vendors have indicated that they have already implemented
  this draft and successfully tested it with clients. The operations of
  this draft are part of the CalDAVTester suite, which is being run by
  multiple vendors during CalConnect interoperability testing sessions.

Personnel

  The Document Shepard is Philipp Kewisch , the
  Responsible Area Director is Alexey Melnikov .


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document for quality and
correctness line by line. The document is ready for publication.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document has been under discussion on multiple occasions since 2011,
therefore no concerns about depth or breadth of the review exist.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No special review is required from the Shepherds standpoint.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with the document.


(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No IPR disclosures have been filed referencing this document.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Agreement has been reached among various experts from within the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No extreme discontent has been indicated.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

There are 11 comments and 1 error in the idnits list. The authors have
been made aware of the nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such formal review is required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

All references have been identified as either normative or informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references point towards completed RFC documents.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward normative references.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

This document will not change the document status of any existing RFCs.
It does register new iCalendar property parameters using the registry
defined in Section 8.2.3 of [RFC5545].


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

All referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified, the IANA
considerations section has been reviewed by the Shepherd. This section
references the future RFC number allocation for this document, changes
should be made by the RFC Editor.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new IANA registries have been created.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

iCalendar examples have been validated using an online validator.
2017-08-14
03 Alexey Melnikov Ballot has been issued
2017-08-14
03 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2017-08-14
03 Alexey Melnikov Created "Approve" ballot
2017-08-14
03 Alexey Melnikov Ballot writeup was changed
2017-07-27
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Orit Levin
2017-07-27
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Orit Levin
2017-07-25
03 Alexey Melnikov Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-08-17
2017-07-25
03 Alexey Melnikov
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Initially, a proposed standard was requested, but due to concerns during
the IETF review regarding the use of non-standard HTTP methods for the
purpose, the type of RFC was changed to informational. Authors feel that
changing the draft to alleviate the concerns would pose an incompatible
change to the draft that would break existing implementations.

Therefore publication of an Informational RFC is being requested.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This specification defines an extension to the calendar access
  protocol (CalDAV) to allow attachments associated with iCalendar data
  to be stored and managed on the server. The attachments are not stored
  inline in the RFC5545 ATTACH property, but instead a link is created
  in a managed fashion.

Working Group Summary

  Version -00 was created in October 2016. As far as I can see there
  have been no major discussions on the calsify mailing list until draft
  -01 was uploaded. At this point, multiple vendors have voiced their
  support and indicated that they have implemented this draft on their
  servers.

  The document originates from draft-daboo-caldav-attachments, which was
  originally created in 2011. Since then the document has been discussed
  and developed within the CalConnect organization among relevant
  vendors in the sector.

  There were no major concerns with the latest version of the draft.


Document Quality
 
  Multiple vendors have indicated that they have already implemented
  this draft and successfully tested it with clients. The operations of
  this draft are part of the CalDAVTester suite, which is being run by
  multiple vendors during CalConnect interoperability testing sessions.

Personnel

  The Document Shepard is Philipp Kewisch , the
  Responsible Area Director is Alexey Melnikov .


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document for quality and
correctness line by line. The document is ready for publication.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document has been under discussion on multiple occasions since 2011,
therefore no concerns about depth or breadth of the review exist.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No special review is required from the Shepherds standpoint.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with the document.


(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No IPR disclosures have been filed referencing this document.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Agreement has been reached among various experts from within the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No extreme discontent has been indicated.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

There are 11 comments and 1 error in the idnits list. The authors have
been made aware of the nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such formal review is required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

All references have been identified as either normative or informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references point towards completed RFC documents.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward normative references.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

This document will not change the document status of any existing RFCs.
It does register new iCalendar property parameters using the registry
defined in Section 8.2.3 of [RFC5545].


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

All referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified, the IANA
considerations section has been reviewed by the Shepherd. This section
references the future RFC number allocation for this document, changes
should be made by the RFC Editor.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new IANA registries have been created.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

iCalendar examples have been validated using an online validator.
2017-07-24
03 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2017-07-24
03 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK
2017-07-24
03 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments-03.txt
2017-07-24
03 (System) New version approved
2017-07-24
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Cyrus Daboo , Arnaud Quillaud , calext-chairs@ietf.org, Ken Murchison
2017-07-24
03 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2017-07-13
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alan DeKok
2017-07-13
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Alan DeKok
2017-07-10
02 Tero Kivinen Assignment of request for Last Call review by SECDIR to Tobias Gondrom was rejected
2017-06-03
02 Alexey Melnikov Removed from agenda for telechat
2017-06-03
02 Philipp Kewisch
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Initially, a proposed standard was requested, but due to concerns during
the IETF review regarding the use of non-standard HTTP methods for the
purpose, the type of RFC was changed to informational. Authors feel that
changing the draft to alleviate the concerns would pose an incompatible
change to the draft that would break existing implementations.

Therefore a standards track, informational standard is being requested.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This specification defines an extension to the calendar access
  protocol (CalDAV) to allow attachments associated with iCalendar data
  to be stored and managed on the server. The attachments are not stored
  inline in the RFC5545 ATTACH property, but instead a link is created
  in a managed fashion.

Working Group Summary

  Version -00 was created in October 2016. As far as I can see there
  have been no major discussions on the calsify mailing list until draft
  -01 was uploaded. At this point, multiple vendors have voiced their
  support and indicated that they have implemented this draft on their
  servers.

  The document originates from draft-daboo-caldav-attachments, which was
  originally created in 2011. Since then the document has been discussed
  and developed within the CalConnect organization among relevant
  vendors in the sector.

  There were no major concerns with the latest version of the draft.


Document Quality
 
  Multiple vendors have indicated that they have already implemented
  this draft and successfully tested it with clients. The operations of
  this draft are part of the CalDAVTester suite, which is being run by
  multiple vendors during CalConnect interoperability testing sessions.

Personnel

  The Document Shepard is Philipp Kewisch , the
  Responsible Area Director is Alexey Melnikov .


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document for quality and
correctness line by line. The document is ready for publication.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The document has been under discussion on multiple occasions since 2011,
therefore no concerns about depth or breadth of the review exist.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No special review is required from the Shepherds standpoint.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with the document.


(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No IPR disclosures have been filed referencing this document.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Agreement has been reached among various experts from within the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No extreme discontent has been indicated.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

There are 11 comments and 1 error in the idnits list. The authors have
been made aware of the nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

No such formal review is required.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

All references have been identified as either normative or informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references point towards completed RFC documents.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward normative references.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

This document will not change the document status of any existing RFCs.
It does register new iCalendar property parameters using the registry
defined in Section 8.2.3 of [RFC5545].


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

All referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified, the IANA
considerations section has been reviewed by the Shepherd. This section
references the future RFC number allocation for this document, changes
should be made by the RFC Editor.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new IANA registries have been created.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

iCalendar examples have been validated using an online validator.
2017-06-02
02 Alexey Melnikov Due to not using the best HTTP practices, but the spec being implemented by several implementations, the document us downgraded to Informational.
2017-06-02
02 Alexey Melnikov Intended Status changed to Informational from Proposed Standard
2017-05-30
02 Alexey Melnikov IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup
2017-05-19
02 Alexey Melnikov Telechat date has been changed to 2017-06-08 from 2017-05-25
2017-05-17
02 Alexey Melnikov Request for Last Call review by ARTART Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Julian Reschke.
2017-05-16
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Orit Levin.
2017-05-14
02 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2017-05-11
02 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2017-05-11
02 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments-02.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments-02.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of [ RFC-to-be ], there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the Properties registry of the iCalendar Element Registries page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/icalendar/

Three new properties will be added as follows:

Property: SIZE
Status: Current
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ], Section 4.1

Property: FILENAME
Status: Current
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ], Section 4.2

Property: MANAGED-ID
Status: Current
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ], Section 4.3

Because this registry requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

Second, in the Permanent Message Header Field Names registry of the Message Headers registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/

a single, new entry will be registered as follows:

Header field name: Cal-Managed-ID
Protocol: http
Status: standard
Specification document(s): [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.1

Because this registry also requires Expert Review [RFC5226] for registration, we've contacted the IESG-designated expert in a separate ticket to request approval. Expert review should be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC.

The IANA Services Operator understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of [ RFC-to-be ].

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI
2017-05-05
02 Jürgen Schönwälder Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. Sent review to list.
2017-05-05
02 Alexey Melnikov Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-05-25
2017-05-04
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Orit Levin
2017-05-04
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Orit Levin
2017-05-04
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tobias Gondrom
2017-05-04
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tobias Gondrom
2017-05-01
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2017-05-01
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder
2017-05-01
02 Alexey Melnikov Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Julian Reschke
2017-05-01
02 Alexey Melnikov Request for Last Call review by ARTART is assigned to Julian Reschke
2017-04-30
02 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2017-04-30
02 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: alexey.melnikov@isode.com, draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments@ietf.org, calsify@ietf.org, calext-chairs@ietf.org, mozilla@kewis.ch
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: alexey.melnikov@isode.com, draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments@ietf.org, calsify@ietf.org, calext-chairs@ietf.org, mozilla@kewis.ch
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (CalDAV Managed Attachments) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Calendaring Extensions WG
(calext) to consider the following document:
- 'CalDAV Managed Attachments'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-05-14. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This specification defines an extension to the calendar access
  protocol (CalDAV) to allow attachments associated with iCalendar data
  to be stored and managed on the server.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2017-04-30
02 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2017-04-30
02 Alexey Melnikov Last call was requested
2017-04-30
02 Alexey Melnikov Last call announcement was generated
2017-04-30
02 Alexey Melnikov Ballot approval text was generated
2017-04-30
02 Alexey Melnikov Ballot writeup was generated
2017-04-30
02 Alexey Melnikov IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation
2017-04-30
02 Alexey Melnikov
My AD review:

In Section 3 HTTP PUT is not mentioned. I think it should be added.

All examples should use https: URI scheme.

In …
My AD review:

In Section 3 HTTP PUT is not mentioned. I think it should be added.

All examples should use https: URI scheme.

In 3.7: if SIZE property is included, should its value be
replaced/ignored/validated?

In 3.12.3: is support for Expect: 100-continue required in compliant
servers?

In Section 8 (Security Considerations): is it worth mentioning
Denial-of-Service attacks?

Appendix B, page 31: just to help me understand the example: after
adding an attachment the RECURRENCE-ID added is the same as the "rid"
request in the attachment-add request.
2017-04-15
02 Alexey Melnikov IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2017-04-14
02 Alexey Melnikov Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2017-04-13
02 Alexey Melnikov Responsible AD changed to Alexey Melnikov
2017-04-13
02 Alexey Melnikov Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard
2017-04-13
02 Alexey Melnikov IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2017-04-13
02 Alexey Melnikov Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication
2017-04-13
02 Philipp Kewisch Changed document writeup
2017-03-22
02 Philipp Kewisch Notification list changed to Philipp Kewisch <mozilla@kewis.ch>
2017-03-22
02 Philipp Kewisch Document shepherd changed to Philipp Kewisch
2017-03-13
02 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments-02.txt
2017-03-13
02 (System) New version approved
2017-03-13
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison , Cyrus Daboo , Arnaud Quillaud
2017-03-13
02 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2017-03-10
01 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments-01.txt
2017-03-10
01 (System) New version approved
2017-03-10
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Kenneth Murchison , Cyrus Daboo , Arnaud Quillaud
2017-03-10
01 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision
2016-10-17
00 Kenneth Murchison New version available: draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments-00.txt
2016-10-17
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2016-10-17
00 Kenneth Murchison Set submitter to "Kenneth Murchison ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: calext-chairs@ietf.org
2016-10-17
00 Kenneth Murchison Uploaded new revision