Skip to main content

Extended MKCOL for Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV)
draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2009-09-02
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2009-08-31
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2009-08-31
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-08-31
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-08-31
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2009-08-31
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-08-28
06 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-08-27
2009-08-27
06 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-08-27
06 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-08-27
06 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2009-08-27
06 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2009-08-27
06 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2009-08-27
06 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2009-08-26
06 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2009-08-26
06 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-08-26
06 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-08-26
06 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen
2009-08-26
06 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2009-08-25
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-08-25
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-08-24
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-08-18
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Ran Canetti.
2009-08-18
06 Alexey Melnikov AD review and GenArt review comments were addressed.
2009-08-18
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-06.txt
2009-08-17
06 Alexey Melnikov Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-08-27 by Alexey Melnikov
2009-08-17
06 Alexey Melnikov State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Alexey Melnikov
2009-08-17
06 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2009-08-17
06 Alexey Melnikov Ballot has been issued by Alexey Melnikov
2009-08-17
06 Alexey Melnikov Created "Approve" ballot
2009-08-17
06 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2009-08-05
06 Amanda Baber IANA comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this
document to have NO IANA Actions.
2009-08-03
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ran Canetti
2009-08-03
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ran Canetti
2009-08-03
06 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2009-08-03
06 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2009-08-02
06 Alexey Melnikov State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Alexey Melnikov
2009-08-02
06 Alexey Melnikov Nothing major found, mostly typos in examples.
2009-08-02
06 Alexey Melnikov Last Call was requested by Alexey Melnikov
2009-08-02
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-08-02
06 (System) Last call text was added
2009-08-02
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-08-02
06 Alexey Melnikov State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Alexey Melnikov
2009-07-28
06 Alexey Melnikov State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Alexey Melnikov
2009-07-16
06 Alexey Melnikov [Note]: 'Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de> agreed to shepherd the document.' added by Alexey Melnikov
2009-07-16
06 Alexey Melnikov

    (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of …

    (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

          - Julian Reschke (julian.reschke@gmx.de)
         
          - Yes, and Yes.
         
    (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?
         
          No reviews outside of the WG. No concerns about the depth of the reviews.

    (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?
         
          - No.

    (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.
         
          - No concerns.

    (1.e) 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?

          - It represents WG consensus among those who care about the
          WebDAV related deliverables.
         
    (1.f) 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
          entered into the ID Tracker.)
         
          - No.

    (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits? (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

          - Yes. idnits 2.11.12 reports no issues for -05.
         
    (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative? 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
          strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].
         
          - All references are normative and there are no downrefs
            or references to drafts.

    (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document? If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
         
          - Document does not require IANA actions, and states that.

    (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?
         
          - Yes (XML examples and DTD fragments checked)

    (1.k) 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 extends the Web Distributed Authoring and
            Versioning (WebDAV) MKCOL method to allow collections of
            arbitrary resourcetype to be created and to allow properties
            to be set at the same time. It avoids minting new MK* methods
            (such as MKCALENDAR) for each new type of collection.
           
          Working Group Summary
            Process was smooth; the only early disagreement was about the
            scope of this document (whether it should apply to
            non-collection resources as well, and whether it should also
            setting ACLs). In the end, the WG converged on the minimal
            functionality needed to resolve the issue.

          Document Quality
            This protocol extension defined in this document is used
            by the VCARDDAV protocol (another deliverable of the Working
            Group), for which several vendors have announced support
            (for instance, Apple, and Viagenie).

          Personnel
            The Document Shepherd for this document was Julian Reschke,
            and the responsible Area Director is Alexey Melnikov.
2009-07-16
06 Alexey Melnikov Draft Added by Alexey Melnikov in state AD is watching
2009-07-16
06 Alexey Melnikov [Note]: 'Julian Reschke  agreed to shepherd the document.' added by Alexey Melnikov
2009-07-13
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-05.txt
2009-03-09
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-04.txt
2009-02-10
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-03.txt
2008-11-28
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-02.txt
2008-11-25
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-01.txt
2008-11-17
06 (System) Document has expired
2008-05-29
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-00.txt