Subject: [VCARDDAV] WG Review: vCard and vCardDAV (vcarddav)

From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:15:02 -0500

A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Application Area.  
The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The following draft
charter was submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only.  
Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list ([email-masked]) by 
January 22nd.

+++

vCard and vCardDAV (vcarddav)
==============================

Current Status: Proposed Working Group

Chair(s):
TBD

Applications Area Director(s):
Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>

Applications Area Advisor:
Chris Newman <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav
Archive: http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/vcarddav

Description of Working Group:

A personal address book (PAB) contains a read/write copy of attributes 
describing a user's interpersonal contacts. This is distinct from a
directory 
which contains a primarily read-only copy of users within an organization.
 
While these two data objects share a large number of common attributes,
their 
use and access patterns are fundamentally different. The IETF has a 
standards-track data format (vCard) which has been successfully used to 
interchange both personal-address-book and user directory entry data
objects. 
However, due to the lack of a standard access control model for LDAP, the
lack 
of a standard LDAP schema and DIT-model for vCard PAB objects, and the 
different access patterns for PAB data (as opposed to directory data), the
use 
of LDAP as an access protocol for PABs has had mixed results in practice.
Moreover, the vCard format has been extended by many parties and the
current 
specification is ambiguous for some objects.

If the deployed protocols related to interpersonal communication are
viewed as 
a component-based system, there are a number of points in the system that
would 
benefit from a standards track access protocol for personal address book
data. 
This includes:

* Mail User Agents use PAB data to assist outgoing email addressing and
may use 
vCard attachments to transport PAB data between users.
* Calendar User Agents use PAB data to invite attendees to events
* Instant Messaging User Agents can provide additional information about a
 
user's buddies if they can be associated with a user's PAB entry.
* A server-side Sieve engine with the spamtest/virustest extension would 
benefit from access to a user's PAB to provide per-user white list
capabilities.
* Various deployed challenge-response mechanisms for email present in Mail
 
Transfer Agents, such as TMDA, would be improved by a PAB-based white
list.
* Mobile device synchronization software might be simplified by a single 
cross-platform PAB access protocol.
* A voice conference or IP telephony system could access a user's PAB to 
provide name-based or nickname-based dialing.

This WG will produce the following outputs:

(1) A revision of the vCard specification (RFC2426) at proposed standard
status. This revision shall include other vCard standardized extensions
(RFC 
2739, 4770) and extensions assisting synchronization technologies (for
example, 
a per-entry UUID or per-attribute sequence number). Other extensions shall
be 
considered either in the base specification or in additional documents.

(2) An address book access protocol leveraging the vCard data format. The
 
Internet-draft draft-daboo-carddav will be the starting point.
The WG is explicitly cautioned to keep the base specification feature set
small 
with an adequate extension mechanism, as failure to do so was a problem
for 
previous PAB efforts (ACAP). The WG will consider arguments of the form 
"feature X must be in the base feature set because ..."
with great skepticism.

These documents will consider security implications carefully. The WG
will 
consider developing a mechanism that provides the ability to check if an
email 
address (or im address, etc) is in the user's PAB without providing 
unrestricted access to all of the user's PAB data. The WG should also
consider 
developing a mechanism that allows the user to grant this limited
permission to 
a third-party service (such as a server-based Sieve engine) for white-list
 
purposes.

Once the primary outputs are complete, the WG will consider the following
 
secondary outputs:

(3) An XML schema which is semantically identical to vCard in all ways
and can 
be mechanically translated to and from vCard format without loss of data.
While 
vCard has deployed successfully and will remain the preferred interchange
format, a standard XML schema which preserves vCard semantics might make
vCard 
data more accessible to XML-centric technologies such as AJAX and XSLT.
Such a 
standard format would be preferable to multiple proprietary XML schemas, 
particularly if vCard semantics were lost by some of them and a lossy
gateway 
problem resulted.
(4) Identifying useful deployed vCard vendor extensions and creating
standards 
track versions of those extensions.
(5) Cooperate with the Sieve WG to produce a Sieve extension for address
book 
Sieve tests.
(6) LDAP mapping to the new vCard format without loss of data.

Goals and milestones:
Q1 2008 Address book access protocol draft
Q1 2008 vCard new revision draft
Q2 2008 submit to IESG both drafts
Q2 2008 XML schema
Q2 2008 LDAP schema
Q3 2008 vcard extensions
Q4 2008 submit to IESG remaining drafts

_______________________________________________
VCARDDAV mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav

---

From: Bernard Desruisseaux <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:18:56 -0500

I would like the charter to state that the following IANA registry should 
be completed and updated:

   http://www.iana.org/assignments/text-directory-registrations

I would also like the charter to say something about RFC 2425 (A MIME 
Content-Type for Directory Information). The registration procedure for new 
value types is specified in this document. Do we believe we can revise RFC 
2426 and leave RFC 2425 as is?

Thanks,
Bernard

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:39:33 -0500

> 2426 and leave RFC 2425 as is?

Well, up to now the unofficial concensus has been that since nothing besides 
2426 uses 2425 anyway, we might as well just merge them. Along with 4770 too. 
So that registry would actually become obsolete.