[Ietf-carddav] minor comments on -01 draft

[Arnaud Quillaud]

Some (rather minor) comments on the CardDAV Draft.

First of all, I find the name ("adbk") a little bit cryptic. "addressbook", "contactbook" would be more clear although a bit long since the name is used as a prefix in most xml elements.

 
1. Introduction and Overview
 
ACAP, LDAP and WebDAV are mentioned but SyncML is missing. Shouldn't we mention it and explain how it does not address the need ?


 
3. Requirements Overview:
 
Why is the support for MKADDRB a MUST when it is a SHOULD for CalDAV ? Not that I care that much but why the difference ?

 

5.1 vCard Object Resources
 
"UID must be unique within a collection".

Nevertheless, according to the UID definition in vCard (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2426#section-3.6.7), the UID identifies the individual or resource. So potentially, you could have a personal vCard and a business vCard corresponding to the same individual. I doubt that it will be the case in practice but who knows...
 
 

6.2.1 adbk-description
 
Although my native language is just "fr" (or is it fr-FR ?) and not "fr-CA", I suspect that "Address de Oliver Daboo" is not really correct. "Adresses de Oliver Daboo" would be more appropriate.
 


6.3.2.  Creating vCard Object Resources
 
The UID property is missing from the example although it is a mandatory property.


8.3. Searching Text: Collations
(and other places)

draft-newman-i18n-comparator is now RFC 4790 ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4790 ).



8.8.  CARDDAV:adbk-sync Report:

It is mentioned that 
<<
The "adbk-sync" reports allows the client to specify whether it
   should receive vCard data for those objects that are new or have
   changed, and it uses the "adbk-data" element (also used in the "adbk-
   query" and "adbk-multiget" reports) for that purpose.
>>
Nevertheless, in the XML definition for abbk-sync (10.9. CARDDAV:adbk-sync XML Element) lacks "(DAV:allprop | DAV:propname | DAV:prop)?" as potential children.

BTW, wouldn't it be possible to move the whole abdk-sync report definition into another draft so that a common mechanism could be used against other types of collections (WebDAV, CalDAV,...) ?

Still in 8.8, it says "The response body for a successful CARDDAV:adbk-multiget REPORT" instead of "The response body for a successful CARDDAV:adbk-sync REPORT"

Arnaud Q