[KEP UPDATE] KEP #9: Storage of configuration and application control information
Florian v. Samson
florian.samson at bsi.bund.de
Thu Aug 11 16:17:54 CEST 2011
Am Freitag, 29. Juli 2011 um 15:50:01 schrieb Georg C. F. Greve:
> The updated draft is now online at
> and is awaiting further comments.
1. "From its inception in 2003 and up until and including Kolab Format 2.0,
the Kolab Groupware Solution has been using the <a
proposal</a> which has been finalized in February 2009 into ..."
1a. Link is syntactically incorrect (No Wiki-syntax, but HTML-syntax).
1b. Statement is incorrect by content: It was primarily draft-5 which was
1c. tools.ietf.org provides better views of RFC (-drafts) than the chosen
Change the Link to
its text to "Annotatemore-05 RFC-draft".
> As there is a bit of text that has been
> touch, I expect some editorial as well as conceptual thinking to be
> required to bring this into final shape.
I feel that the next sentence "The Kolab Format that results from this
changeset against the Kolab Format 2.0 will consider usage of the
ANNOTATEMORE proposal deprecated and specify RFC 4564 only." is phrased a
bit too softly, as IIRC we all agreed, that this must result in a
normative "Kolab-clients and -servers MUST adhere to RFC4564" in the Kolab
Format specification v2.0 and later. "will consider only", rather sounds
to me as if this will be just the only solution depicted there.
a. General: "Kolab XML version 1.0", "XML version 1.1", "the object
version ... at 1.1", "Kolab Format 2.0" all do mean "Kolab Format
specification version x.y", right?
a.I. If so, please call them consistently "Kolab Format specification
version x.y" only, in order to cease the ongoing confusion (for years,
already). When talking about Kolab-objects specifically, please call
them "a Kolab Object complying with the Kolab Format specification version
x.y", or "according to", "adhering", etc.
a.II. If not, then the confusion is larger than I can grasp. Consequently
this wording-mishmash would be in dire need of more clearing-up and
b. "There MUST NEVER be more than one folder per user with the
subtype 'default';" is under-determined IMHO. By context one can conclude
that shall state (I tried to improve wording as well):
"There MUST be at most a single folder of type 'configuration' with the
subtype 'default' per user;"
c. "The subtype of the configuration folder-type for shared folders MUST
NEVER be set to 'default';" -> (Improve wording, pull the most important
noun in front)
"Shared folders of the type 'configuration' MUST NEVER carry the
HTH & cheers
More information about the format