Julian Reschke schrieb:
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.
> ...
This problem is still present in the new draft
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-dusseault-caldav-15.html#rfc.section.1.2>).
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf