Bernard Desruisseaux schrieb:
Julian Reschke wrote:
With respect to draft 14, I notice that the reference to RFC2518bis
has been downgraded to RFC2518 (which I don't object to), but that
references *into* RFC2518 now use broken section numbers (as they
haven't been updated accordingly).
Hi Julian,
I'm sorry but all references into RFC2518 have been updated accordingly
as far I can tell. Am I missing something?
1) In
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-dusseault-caldav-14.html#rfc.section.1.2>,
you don't want to refer to Appendix 4 of RFC2518 as the WG consensus is
that this appendix is incorrect, and for that reason it was removed in
RFC2518bis.
2) In
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-dusseault-caldav-14.html#rfc.section.5.2.1>
you refer to Section 12.4.1, which in RFC2518 describes the DAV:source
property. The equivalent of 12.4.1 in RFC2518bis does not exist in
RFC2518, so you can't refer to it (thus you may have to either repeat
it, or refer to RFC3253 or RFC3744 instead). Same for subsequent
references to that Section.
Hope this helps,
Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf