Network Working Group M. Douglass
Internet-Draft Spherical Cow Group
Updates: 5545,5546 (if approved) February 13, 2017
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: August 17, 2017

Calendar subscription upgrades


This specification introduces an approach to allow subscribers to calendar feeds to upgrade to a more performant protocol.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2017.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents ( in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Currently clients subscribe to calendar feeds as an ics file which is often published as a resource accessible using the unofficial 'webcal' scheme.

The only available option for updating that resource is the usual HTTP polling of cached resources using Etags.

There is the usual tension between clients wishing to see a timely response to changes and servers not wishing to be overloaded by frequent requests for possibly large amounts of data.

This specification introduces an approach whereby clients can discover a more performant access method. Given the location of the resource as an ics file, the client can download the file and inspect the returned headers which will offer a number of alternative access methods.

Given that many clients already support CalDAV this provides an easy upgrade path for those clients. CalDAV and DAV subsets are specified here to allow lighter weight implementations.

1.1. Conventions Used in This Document

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2. Changes to the iCalendar specifications

This speciifcation does not require any changes to [RFC5545] or its extensions. However it does introduce the use of some properties to provide more information about the resource, for example the time range it covers.

3. Link Header

The advertising of other access points is achieved through the use of the LINK header as defined in [RFC5988]. New link relation types are defined in this specification - each being associated with a protocol or protocol subset.

4. Link relation subscribe-caldav

This specifies an access point which is a full implementation of caldav but requires no authentication. The end point is read only but allows the full range of reports as defined by the CalDAV specification.

The client MUST follow the specification to determine exactly what operations are allowed on the access point - for example to determine if sync-report is supported.

5. Link relation subscribe-caldav-auth

This specifies an access point which is a full implementation of caldav and requires authentication. This may allow read-write access to the resource.

The client MUST follow the specification to determine exactly what operations are allowed on the access point - for example to determine if sync-report is supported.

6. Link relation subscribe-webdav-sync

This specifies an access point which supports only webdav sync.

This allows the client to issue a sync-report on the resource to obtain updates.

NOTE: say something about initial startup - use ics to populate? Initial token?

The client MUST follow that specification.

7. Link relation subscribe-something-else

This specifies an access point which supports something new.

The client MUST follow that specification.

8. Security Considerations

Applications using these properties need to be aware of the risks entailed in using the URIs provided as values. See [RFC3986] for a discussion of the security considerations relating to URIs.

9. Privacy Considerations

Properties with a "URI" value type can expose their users to privacy leaks as any network access of the URI data can be tracked. Clients SHOULD NOT automatically download data referenced by the URI without explicit instruction from users. This specification does not introduce any additional privacy concerns beyond those described in [RFC5545].

10. IANA Considerations

10.1. Link Relation Registrations

This document defines the following new iCalendar properties to be added to the registry defined in Section 8.2.3 of [RFC5545]:

Relation Name Description Reference
subscribe-caldav Current RFCXXXX, Section 4
subscribe-caldav_auth Current RFCXXXX, Section 5
subscribe-webdav-sync Current RFCXXXX, Section 6
subscribe-something-else Current RFCXXXX, Section 7

11. Acknowledgements

The author would also like to thank the members of the Calendaring and Scheduling Consortium Calendar Sharing technical committee and the following individuals for contributing their ideas and support:


The authors would also like to thank the Calendaring and Scheduling Consortium for advice with this specification.

12. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-calext-extensions] Daboo, C., "New Properties for iCalendar", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-calext-extensions-05, August 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, DOI 10.17487/RFC2434, October 1998.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005.
[RFC4589] Schulzrinne, H. and H. Tschofenig, "Location Types Registry", RFC 4589, DOI 10.17487/RFC4589, July 2006.
[RFC5545] Desruisseaux, B., "Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object Specification (iCalendar)", RFC 5545, DOI 10.17487/RFC5545, September 2009.
[RFC5546] Daboo, C., "iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability Protocol (iTIP)", RFC 5546, DOI 10.17487/RFC5546, December 2009.
[RFC5988] Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, DOI 10.17487/RFC5988, October 2010.
[W3C.REC-xml-20060816] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E. and F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-20060816, August 2006.

Appendix A. Open issues

restype values:
Need to determine what if any registry of resource types already exists and use that.

Appendix B. Change log

v05 2016-11-08 MD

Author's Address

Michael Douglass Spherical Cow Group 226 3rd Street Troy, NY 12180 USA EMail: URI: