Document: draft-daboo-srv-caldav-08.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia Review Date: 08-Sept-2010 IETF LC End Date: 09-Sept-2010 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as a standards track RFC. The reviewer has some minor/editorial comments and questions that should be addressed. I reviewed version 05 of this document, and the concerned I had at that time has been properly addressed. Major issues: Minor issues: - Section 4, second paragraph. The text reads: A site MAY provide TXT records in addition to SRV records for each service. I think that the "MAY" word does not make sense written in capital letters, because in this case you are giving an operational advice of the protocol. This is not the intention of a capitalized "MAY", which is supposed to indicate an optional requirement for conformance of the protocol. I suggest to replace "MAY" with "may". - A question on Section 4, 2nd paragraph. The text says how to _use_ the existing "context path" with the received "path" in the TXT record. First, I am not sure that the word "use" is good enough here. Do you mean "replace"? Second, I don't know what is a "context path" and where it is defined, so, can you add a reference to a document that defines context path? Third, it is not clear to me that even with the two above clarifications, there is a unique way to build a new URI with the information received in the TXT record. Can you demonstrate that there is only one way of creating this URI with the received "path", so that all the implementations will obtain the same result? - Section 6. The title of the section contains the word "Guidelines". To me, the word Guideline indicates a suggestion, or pure informative text. So, I am surprise to see quite a lot of normative text (see bullet points 2, 4, etc.). This makes me think that the title is not accurate, and perhaps you should talk about "Procedures" rather than "Guidelines". - Section 6, first paragraph, the text reads: This section describes a procedure that CalDAV or CardDAV clients MAY use to do their initial configuration based on minimal user input. This is a relative clause. I don't like to have normative statements ("MAY") in relative clauses, because normative part of it becomes diluted. If you still want to have normative MAY, split the sentence into two. My recommendation, you don't need normative, and the "MAY" should be written in lower case. - In Section 6, bullet point 3, the text describes a client making an SRV request and receiving SRV and TXT records in a response. So, the client receives TXT even when it didn't ask for it. In principle, draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd does not recommend the inclusion of TXT records when SRV is requested. So, I wonder if there is a real use case for this paragraph. - Section 6, bullet point 5, first paragraph. The text reads: Certificate verification MUST use the procedure outlined in Section 4 of [I-D.saintandre-tls-server-id-check] in regard to verification with an SRV RR as the starting point. I would like to see an explicit active sentence, with a proper subject. So, who must do the verification, the client? Then write: "The client MUST do a certificate verification by using the procedure... " Nits/editorial comments: - Abstract. I am missing an explicit mention to "DNS", for example: "This specification describes how DNS SRV records, DNS TXT records and well-known URIs can be used together or separately to locate..." - The short title of the I-D, which is visible in the header of every page, misses "CardDAV, because it merely reads "SRV for CalDAV". - Introduction, first paragraph: s/port/port number - Introduction, third paragraph: s/addition al/additional - Section 4, 2nd paragraph. Write ".well-known" within quotes to facilitate the reading of the text. - Section 5 talks about the prohibition to servers to locate the actual service in the well-known URI. I would suggest to add a bit of motivation. Perhaps it is already covered in another document, but still it would be good to find out the reason.