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 <mozilla@kewis.ch>, the
Responsible Area Director is Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>.
(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.