Subject: [calsify] draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments idnits

From: Philipp Kewisch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 22:35:37 +0100

Hello Authors,

The idnits tool has identified an error and some comments. Could you
make sure that the references are resolved and double check if the URL
references are specified in the correct form?

https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments-02.txt

Kind Regards,
Philipp

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:17:20 -0400

Hi Philipp,

The first 10 of the offending references are automatically generated by 
xml2rfc and will not appear when the RFC editor removes the 
Implementation Status section.

The reference to RFC 2518 is used to point to the specification of the 
"102 (Processing)" HTTP status code, which was removed (but not 
deprecated) in the RFC 4918 update.  If the chairs or ADs feel that 
there is a better way reference this status code I would be glad to 
alter the draft, or possibly re-define it in a separate draft.

I've CC'd Julian Reschke whom I previously asked about HTTP code 102 and 
who suggested that I simply reference RFC 2518.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:33:18 +0100

> who suggested that I simply reference RFC 2518.

Yes, that's the right thing to do.

Best regards, Julian