Refernces, was: [Ietf-caldav] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-desruisseaux-caldav-sched-03.txt]

[Cyrus Daboo]

Hi Julian,

--On January 30, 2007 1:59:44 PM +0100 Julian Reschke 
<julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hmmm...
>
>>    o  MUST support transport over TLS [RFC2246] as defined in [RFC2818]
>>       (note that [RFC2246] has been obsoleted by [RFC4346]);
>
> So does a server need to implement RFC2246 or RFC4346? Does it matter?

Hi Tim,

--On January 30, 2007 12:10:35 PM -0500 Tim Hare <TimHare at comcast.net> 
wrote:

> Tongue-in-cheek, but only halfway:  seems like we need an RFC that
> specifies a protocol whereby RFCs can refer to related topics by name,
> rather than number (sort of a DNS for RFCs).  With caveats, of course,
> because my RFC written today may not be compatible with whatever the new
> version of [SomeProtocol] may be although we could and should always hope
> that the authors of [SomeProtocolRevisionTwo] provide backward
> compatibility.

Actually this is an important issue. In fact Chris Newman posted a message 
on this specific topic to the IETF apps area mailing list to solicit 
discussion there. I suggest moving this thread over there.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo