[KEP UPDATE] KEP #9: Storage of configuration and application control information

Georg C. F. Greve greve at kolabsys.com
Thu Aug 18 08:16:03 CEST 2011

Hi Florian,

On Thursday 11 August 2011 16.17:54 Florian v. Samson wrote:
> 1c. tools.ietf.org provides better views of RFC (-drafts) than the chosen
> one.

Very true. This is primarily an issue of the KEP template in the Wiki, though, 
so for Jeroen to fix. I think I asked him to change the link for the template 
some time ago, but he probably did not manage to find the time.

> Suggestion:
> Change the Link to
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-daboo-imap-annotatemore-05> and
> its text to "Annotatemore-05 RFC-draft".

Clarified and modified as proposed.

> 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.

Agreed. Made it stronger in language.

> 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?


This is precisely the language that Bernhard and yourself agreed to in the 
discussions around KEP 2, so I reused the same naming conventions, so

	Kolab Format

for the overall specification, and

	Kolab XML version

for the version number of the XML objects, as the two have unfortunately been 
allowed to diverge, so now we have a little bit of inherent confusion in 

> 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;"

Agreed & applied.

> 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';"

Agreed & applied with Jeroens improvement.

Thanks for the review and input!

Best regards,

Georg C. F. Greve
Chief Executive Officer

Kolab Systems AG
Zürich, Switzerland

e: greve at kolabsys.com
t: +41 78 904 43 33
w: http://kolabsys.com

pgp: 86574ACA Georg C. F. Greve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 308 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.kolab.org/pipermail/format/attachments/20110818/93850c1a/attachment.sig>

More information about the format mailing list