Subject: Re: [VCARDDAV] Calendar resource schema draft

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:13:30 -0400

On 2011-09-28 11:00, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> We would like to move ahead with publishing of
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cal-resource-schema-05>, but I wanted
> to know whether the new charter item for this WG of producing an
> LDAP->vCard mapping might pre-empt that. Do we have to delay the
> cal-resource-schema draft in the WG work item?

Note that this item is not new. It has always been in the charter.

As far as I can see, your draft defines a vCard<->LDAP mapping but only
for new stuff, right? Does it say, for example, that some piece of
information is represented in vCard as syntactic element X, where X is
something that already exists? If all Xs are new stuff (i.e. IANA will
need to create new records in the vCard registry for them) then I don't
see a conflict.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: Ciny Joy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:52:26 -0700

Hi Simon,
   It does map existing VCARD to new or existing LDAP equivalents in many cases. Actually in as many as possible. To take a quick example:

5.1.  Common Name

   Description:
      Full name of the resource.  This attribute MUST be defined for a
      resource object.

   ValueType:
      String value.

   Example value:
      Room One

5.1.1.  LDAP Attribute Definition

   cn attribute as defined in Section 2.3 of [RFC4519].  This attribute
   MUST be present in a CalendarResource object.

5.1.2.  VCard Property Definition

   FN property as defined in Section 6.2.1 of [RFC6350].

Will this cause a conflict with the proposed LDAP->vCard mapping work?

Thanks,
Ciny

On Oct 12, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> VCARDDAV mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:55:15 -0400

>    FN property as defined in Section 6.2.1 of [RFC6350].

Oh, wow, wonder how I missed that.

> Will this cause a conflict with the proposed LDAP->vCard mapping work?

Yes, I think that's exactly the kind of mapping we're chartered to work on.

Simon

---

From: Ciny Joy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:07:43 -0700

> Yes, I think that's exactly the kind of mapping we're chartered to work on.
Ok, so does that mean this draft has to wait around till your work is complete? Sorry, I am not very familiar with the right procedure in such situations.

Thanks,
Ciny

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:17:13 -0400

> Ok, so does that mean this draft has to wait around till your work is complete? Sorry, I am not very familiar with the right procedure in such situations.

Well I guess it depends. Even "waiting around" would not be appropriate
because, assuming the LDAP<->vCard mapping RFC happens, then it would
conflict with something that already exists. So it will either need to
be modified so as to not conflict, or be modified to correspond more
fully to the WG charter item and be adopted as a WG draft. I'd prefer
the latter, of course.

To be clear: we have a charter item, but we don't have a corresponding
draft. Your draft could become that draft.

Simon