[Ietf-carddav] RFC2518 dependency (draft-daboo-carddav-02 review)

[Julian Reschke]

Hi,

I have started to review the latest draft, but haven't finished yet. 
However, it seems that some points merit separate discussion threads 
anyway, so I'll start with one of those.

Right now, draft-daboo-carddav-02 has a normative dependence on RFC2518, 
and mentions RFC2518bis only informatively. Is this an oversight?

Here's what I'd propose:

- get rid of RFC2518 reference
- make RFC2518bis reference normative (update all references to RFC2518 
accordingly)
- require DAV class 3 support
- RFC3253 is cited for some things that have been updated by RFC2518bis, 
such as pre/postcondition definitions, DAV:error marshalling, and the 
definition of "protected property" -- please update those to refer to 
RFC2518bis (I guess the only RFC3253 dependencies should be on things 
related to the REPORT method).

Best regards, Julian