Calendaring Extensions to WebDAV (CalDAV)
RFC 4791

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.

(Ted Hardie) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2006-06-19 for -)
No email
send info
At the end of section 5.3.4:
   In the case where the data stored by a server as a result of a PUT
   request is not equivalent by octet equality to the submitted calendar
   object resource, the behavior of the ETag response header is
   undefined, with the exception that a strong entity tag MUST NOT be
   returned in the response.

This sentence is hard to interpret - what is the meaning of "the behavior 
of the ETag response header is undefined" in addition to a strong enity tag
being forbidden?

(From Gen-ART review by Joel Halpern)

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Comment (2006-06-22)
No email
send info
Note:  reference to 2518bis is a potential blocker, since it's still in the WG; is 2518 good enough or will the bis be done soon enough?

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

Comment (2006-06-22 for -)
No email
send info
I would have preferred to see the ETag issue driven to general consensus across HTTP, DAV, and this. I hope people still try to drive that to consensus.

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2006-06-21 for -)
No email
send info
The second paragraph in the Introduction section says: 

'Discussion of this Internet-Draft is taking place on the mailing list
   <http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-caldav>.'

Is this sentence supposed to be taken out, or maybe refer to 'this memo' instead of 'this Internet-Draft'?

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) Recuse