Feedback on draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-01, Re: [VCARDDAV] I-D Action:draft-ietf-vcarddav-webdav-mkcol-01.txt

Hi,

I just checked, and it appears my comments for draft -00 really haven't 
been considered yet: 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vcarddav/current/msg00496.html>. 
Please do so.

On reading -01, I found one other issue: when using extended MKCOL, is 
it required to specify DAV:collection in the resource type? It appears 
irrelevant (as the resource always will be a collection) -- I don't have 
any specific preference, but it could be good to clarify that in order 
to avoid interop problems.

Besides that, I found mainly editorial issues (sent privately to Cyrus), 
such as:

1) too generic references (I prefer when a spec tells the reader which 
secton to visit), and

2) RFC-Editor nits (unexpanded abbreviations, text talking about "this 
proposal" instead of "this specification", Title Case in Section Titles) 
-- I think it's good to have them resolved as early as possible -- the 
less changes the RFC Editor needs to do, the better (speaking from 
experience :-).

BR, Julian