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

[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?).

[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?).

[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.

[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?

[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...

[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?).

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

(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

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.

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.