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

[Alanna Paloma <[e-mail]>]

Authors and AD,

We do not believe we have heard from you regarding this document's readiness
for publication.  Please review our previous messages describing the AUTH48
process and containing any document-specific questions we may have had.

We will wait to hear from you before continuing with the publication process.

The AUTH48 status page for this document is located here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9554

Thank you,
RFC Editor/ap

> On Mar 15, 2024, at 2:47 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
>