[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

Hi Georg,

Am Freitag, 29. Juli 2011 um 15:50:01 schrieb Georg C. F. Greve:
> ...
> The updated draft is now online at
> 	http://wiki.kolab.org/User:Greve/Drafts/KEP:9
> 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 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore-05> and 
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 
clarification, then.

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 
subtype 'default';"

HTH & cheers

More information about the format mailing list