Re: [auth48] [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9554 <draft-ietf-calext-vcard-jscontact-extensions-10> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors and AD*,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!--[rfced] *AD, changes were submitted twice after the document was
initially approved. Please review the updates from version 15 to
version 17 and let us know if you approve. The updates can be
viewed in this diff file:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9554-ad-diff.html
-->			


2) <!--[rfced] Would it be correct to make "Extension" plural in the
document title since the document discusses several extensions?
If not, should "Extensions" be made singular in the short title
for consistency? Please review.

Document Title
Original:
   vCard Format Extension for JSContact

Perhaps:
   vCard Format Extensions for JSContact

...
Short Title
Original:
   vCard JSContact Extensions
-->


3) <!--[rfced] For consistency and to match the companion documents, we
removed the quote marks from the "ADR" property, "N" property,
and "TYPE" parameter.  Please let us know of any objections.
-->


4) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether any of the notes in this document
should be in the <aside> element. It is defined as "a container for 
content that is semantically less important or tangential to the 
content that surrounds it" (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside).
-->


5) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether the "type" attribute should be set for
all sourcecode elements in the XML file. If the current list of preferred
values for "type"
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt) does not
contain an applicable type, then feel free to suggest a new one.
Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.  -->


6) <!--[rfced] When we attempted to validate the ABNF using <https://author-tools.ietf.org/abnf>, we received the following error.
Please review and let us know how we may fix this.


(130:0): error: Rule SCRIPT was already defined on line 123 of 
parsing failed: 1 errors encountered
-->


7) <!--[rfced] The following three lines exceed the 72-character limit
within the sourcecode. Please review and let us know where you
prefer to place the line breaks.

Original
  Section 2.1:
    ADR-component-streetnumber ";" ADR-component-streetname ";" (2 characters over)
    ;;123 Main Street;Any Town;CA;91921-1234;U.S.A.;;123;Main Street;;;;;;;  (4 over)

  Section 4.6:
    phonetic-value = "ipa" / "piny" / "jyut" / "script" / iana-token / x-name (7 over)
-->


8) <!--[rfced] We updated Section "6.2.2" to "6.3.1" in the following
text as Section "6.2.2" is not the correct section reference
(note that the second paragraph is included for context). Please
let us know of any objections.

Original:
   The following change is made to the "Example" section, originally 
   specified in Section 6.2.2 of [RFC6350].

   Example: In this example, the post office box and the extended address 
   components are absent. The street number and name are both added as 
   separate components and are combined in the street component for backwards
   compatibility.

Current:
   The following change is made under "Example", as originally 
   specified in Section 6.3.1 of [RFC6350].

   Example: In this example, the post office box and the extended address 
   components are absent. The street number and name are both added as 
   separate components and are combined in the street component for 
   backwards compatibility.
-->


9) <!--[rfced] In Section 6.2.2 of RFC 6350, "Special note" is singular,
but Section 2.2 of this document uses the plural form.  Should
"notes" be updated to "note" to match RFC 6350 as shown below, or
do you prefer the plural form?

Original:
   Special notes: The structured property value corresponds, in
   sequence, to the

Perhaps:
   Special note: The structured property value corresponds, in
   sequence, to the
-->	


10) <!-- [rfced] In the html and pdf outputs, the text enclosed in <tt> is output in
fixed-width font. In the txt output, there are no changes to the font,
and the quotation marks have been removed. 

Please review carefully and let us know if the output is acceptable or if any
updates are needed.

Additionally, note that <tt> appears to be used inconsistently. For example, 
some instances of "LANGUAGE" are enclosed with <tt> and some are not. 
Please review the terms and let us know if any further updates are needed
for consistency.
--> 


11) <!--[rfced] FYI: We listed the following terms in alphabetical order
to match how they are listed in Table 4 (Section 7.4) and the
"vCard Parameter Values" registry
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/vcard-elements/>. 

Original:
   ipa: denotes the International Phonetic Alphabet [IPA].
   piny: denotes the Standard Mandarin romanization system "Hanyu Pinyin".
   jyut: denotes the Cantonese romanization system "Jyutping".
   script: denotes the unknown phonetic system. The SCRIPT (Section 4.8) 
      parameter MUST be set in addition to the PHONETIC parameter.

Current:
   ipa: denotes the International Phonetic Alphabet [IPA].
   jyut: denotes the Cantonese romanization system "Jyutping".
   piny: denotes the Standard Mandarin romanization system "Hanyu Pinyin".
   script: denotes the unknown phonetic system. The SCRIPT (Section 4.8) 
      parameter MUST be set in addition to the PHONETIC parameter.
-->


12) <!--[rfced] Should "MAY not" be updated as "MUST NOT" in the
following? Please review.

Original:
   If more than one same-named property
   has both the PHONETIC parameter set and an equal ALTID parameter
   value, then at most one of these properties MAY not have the
   LANGUAGE parameter set and all others MUST have the LANGUAGE
   parameter set. 

Perhaps:
   If more than one same-named property
   has both the PHONETIC parameter set and an equal ALTID parameter
   value, then at most, one of these properties MUST NOT have the
   LANGUAGE parameter set, and all others MUST have the LANGUAGE
   parameter set. 
-->


13) <!-- [rfced] FYI: We have added an expansion for the following
abbreviation per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style
Guide"). Please review this as well as each expansion in the
document to ensure correctness.

  Common Locale Data Repository (CLDR) (per RFC 7529)
-->


14) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online 
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should 
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/kc/ap


On Mar 15, 2024, at 2:42 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2024/03/15

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
   follows:

   <!-- [rfced] ... -->

   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
   - contact information
   - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

   *  your coauthors
   
   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
     
   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
      list:
     
     *  More info:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
     
     *  The archive itself:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
        its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
 — OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9554.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9554.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9554.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9554.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9554-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9554-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9554-xmldiff1.html


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9554

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9554 (draft-ietf-calext-vcard-jscontact-extensions-10)

Title            : vCard Format Extension for JSContact
Author(s)        : R. Stepanek, M. Loffredo
WG Chair(s)      : Bron Gondwana, Daniel Migault
Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Francesca Palombini