Subject: [VCARDDAV] CardDAV and MKCOLext

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:13:46 -0400

Hi folks,
I submitted updates to the CardDAV and MKCOL ext drafts yesterday. The 
changes address all the issues discussed at the last meeting which were 
comments from the working group last call. I therefore would like to 
suggest to the chairs that they consider submitting these to the IESG as 
the next step.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:44:45 -0400

I've put you first on the agenda in Stockholm. Please prepare short
presentation on issues raised and how they are resolved. If everybody
ok, then we will forward to IESG.

Marc.

-- 
=========
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
DTN news service: http://reeves.viagenie.ca

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:13:53 -0400

Hi Marc,

> ok, then we will forward to IESG.

OK. Slides will be virtually the same as last time then! Good - less work 
for me!

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:19:53 +0200

> suggest to the chairs that they consider submitting these to the IESG as 

+1

Related to this: for the purpose of determining support for this 
protocol, it would be interesting to find out about current 
implementation efforts (for both specs!).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Filip Navara <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:57:33 +0200

2009/7/15 Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>:
> Cyrus Daboo wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>> I submitted updates to the CardDAV and MKCOL ext drafts yesterday. The changes address all the issues discussed at the last meeting which were comments from the working group last call. I therefore would like to suggest to the chairs that they consider submitting these to the IESG as the next step.
>
> +1
>
> Related to this: for the purpose of determining support for this protocol, it would be interesting to find out about current implementation efforts (for both specs!).
>
> Best regards, Julian

Servers:
- Icewarp Mail Server (http://www.icewarp.com)  supports both CardDAV
and extended MKCOL, but not according to latest draft.
- egroupware (http://www.egroupware.org) claims to support CardDAV, no
support for MKCOL (extended or not)

Clients:
- eM Client (http://www.emclient.com) supports both drafts according
to the latest revision, but doesn't use all the features.

Best regards,
Filip Navara

---

From: Arnaud Quillaud <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:18:24 +0200

On 07/14/2009 06:13 PM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> changes address all the issues discussed at the last meeting which 
> were comments from the working group last call. I therefore would like 
> to suggest to the chairs that they consider submitting these to the 
> IESG as the next step.
>
One typo and one question about the Extended MKCOL:

1) You have a "3.5 Example: Successful Extended MKCOL Request" - Didn't 
you mean to say *Unsuccessful* instead of successful ?

2) Both WebDAV Versioning and CalDAV define the following precondition:

<<
(DAV:resource-must-be-null): A resource MUST NOT exist at the
       request-URL.

Doesn't it belong in the Extended MKCOL preconditions list as well ?

Arnaud Q

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:27:14 -0400

Hi Arnaud,

> you mean to say *Unsuccessful* instead of successful ?

Thanks. Julian also spotted that and I have it fixed in my working copy.

> (DAV:resource-must-be-null): A resource MUST NOT exist at the

The current draft states in Sectio 3.3: "This specification adds the 
following precondition for the extended MKCOL request.". i.e. the 
pre-condition defined there is added to those already defined. Perhaps it 
would be better as:

    This specification adds the following precondition for the extended
    MKCOL request, in addition to those already defined for the regular
    MKCOL request.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo