Calendaring Extensions to WebDAV (CalDAV)
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 -)
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
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 -)
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 -)
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'?