Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9555 <draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-vcard-13> for your review

[Karen Moore <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert, Murray, and Orie,

Thank you for your replies and the updated XML file. Our files now reflect these changes. Note that “text/vcard” is a valid sourcecode type as well as “text/plain”. If you would like to replace “text/vcard” per Orie’s comment, please let us know.

> [OS] Thanks for making this change, in case "text/vcard" is rejected (for some tooling reason) "text/plain" would also work... in fact it may be more appropriate if the source code is not a fully valid vcard in text serialization... Is it valid?

Additionally, we updated Section 2.3.17 with Orie’s suggested text; however, if further changes are desired by the authors, we are happy to make the update.

> NEW:
>    The PREF parameter (Section 5.3 of [RFC6350]) converts to the pref
>    property of the derived JSContact object.


Please consider if any updates are needed to this similar sentence that follows in Section 2.3.18:

  The PROP-ID parameter (Section 4.7 of [RFC9554]) converts to the Id-
   typed key of the JSContact object, to which the vCard property having
   this parameter converts.

  
FILES (please refresh):

The updated XML file is here:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555.xml

The updated output files are here:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555.txt
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555.pdf
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555.html

This diff file shows all changes made during AUTH48:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555-auth48diff.html

These diff files show only the changes made during the last edit round:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555-lastdiff.html
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555-lastrfcdiff.html

This diff file shows all changes made to date:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555-diff.html

Please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.  We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the publication process.

For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9555

Best regards,
RFC Editor/kc


> On Apr 4, 2024, at 11:14 AM, Orie Steele <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Agree with Robert.
> 
> Thanks for making this change, in case "text/vcard" is rejected (for some tooling reason) "text/plain" would also work... in fact it may be more appropriate if the source code is not a fully valid vcard in text serialization... Is it valid?
> 
> Regarding comment 4:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>    The PREF parameter (Section 5.3 of [RFC6350]) converts to the pref
>    property of that JSContact object, to which the vCard property having
>    this parameter converts.
> 
> NEW:
> 
>    The PREF parameter (Section 5.3 of [RFC6350]) converts to the pref
>    property of the derived JSContact object.
> 
> Is this acceptable?
> 
> OS


> On Apr 4, 2024, at 3:00 AM, Robert Stepanek <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> attached is the updated document. Please see my replies below.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024, at 2:08 AM, Karen Moore wrote:
>> 1) Note that “vcard” is not on the list of acceptable sourcecode types. Please review the list at "https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt” and let us know if there is an applicable type that may be used instead of "vcard". If there isn’t one, you may suggest a new one (that we would run by RPAT for approval), or you can leave the “type" attribute blank. 
> 
> We now changed the sourcecode type to "text/vcard". We'll keep using "json" instead of "application/jscontact+json" for the JSContact examples.
> 
>> 
>> 2) The text below is referencing Section 2.3.15; however, this text is located in Section 2.3.15. Is the intention perhaps to reference Figure 5 or another section? Or should the section reference be removed?
>> 
>> Current:
>>    The value of the SCRIPT parameter converts to the phoneticScript
>>    property (see Section 2.3.15).
> 
> This was a mistake. I now updated the document to refer to Section 2.3.19.
> 
>> 
>> 3) The following lines are longer than the 72-character limit. Please let us know how you would like to break the lines.
>> 
>> Original:
>>    (Figure 12)
>>    N;SORT-AS="Stevenson,John Philip":Stevenson;John;Philip,Paul;Dr.;Jr.,M.D.,A.C.P.;;Jr. (16 over)
>> 
>>    (Figure 15)
>>    ADR;TYPE=work;CC=US:;;54321 Oak St;Reston;VA;20190;USA;;;;54321;Oak St;;;;;; (7 over)
>> 
>>    (Section 3.3.1)
>>    DQUOTE [jscomps-entry-sep ] ";" jscomps-entrylist DQUOTE (12 over)
>>   
>>    jscomps-entry-verb = *QSAFE-CHAR ; encode special characters according to RFC 6868 (16 over)
>> 
>>    (Figure 53)
>>    N;JSCOMPS=";1;2;2,1;0;6;4,1":Stevenson;John;Philip,Paul;;Jr.,M.D.;;Jr. (4 over)
>> 
>>    (Figure 54)
>>    ADR;JSCOMPS="s,\, ;11;s, ;10;3":;;54321 Oak St;Reston;;;;;;;Oak St;54321;;;;;; (12 over)
> 
> I now reformatted the examples and ABNF to not exceed the 72-character limit.
> 
>> 4) May we update the following sentence for clarity? Note that there is one other similar instance. Please let us know if the suggested text retains the intended meaning or if you prefer otherwise.
>> 
>> Current:
>>   The PREF parameter (Section 5.3 of [RFC6350]) converts to the pref
>>    property of that JSContact object, to which the vCard property having
>>    this parameter converts.
>> 
>> Perhaps:
>>    The PREF parameter (Section 5.3 of [RFC6350]) and the vCard property 
>>     that has this parameter convert to the pref property of the JSContact object.
>  
> I'm not happy with the Current sentence either, but the suggested update changes the meaning.
> 
> The background is this: a vCard property converts to a JSContact object. If the vCard property has the PREF parameter set, then the value of that vCard parameter converts to the "pref" property of the JSContact object to which the property converted to.
> 
> I'd be happy to use a simpler phrasing than the current one, but I struggle to come up with it.
> 
>> 
>> 5) Note: once we have finished this round of editing, we will ask the AD to approve several changes that are beyond editorial.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robert
> 
>> 
>> 
>> FILES (please refresh):
>> 
>> The updated XML file is here:
>> 
>> The updated output files are here:
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555.txt
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555.pdf
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555.html
>> 
>> This diff file shows all changes made during AUTH48:
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555-auth48diff.html
>> 
>> This diff file shows all changes made to date:
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555-diff.html
>> 
>> Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the most recent version. Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make changes once it has been published as an RFC.
>> 
>> Please contact us with any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form.  We will await approvals from each author and the AD prior to moving forward in the publication process.
>> 
>> For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see:
>>  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9555
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> RFC Editor/kc
>> 
>>  
>> > On Apr 2, 2024, at 5:57 AM, Robert Stepanek <rsto=[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Dear Editors,
>> > 
>> > thanks for your review. We now updated the document (attached) accordingly.
>> > 
>> > Best regards,
>> > Robert
>> > 
>> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024, at 10:54 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/rfc9555.xml
>> >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555.html
>> >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555.pdf
>> >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555.txt
>> >> 
>> >> Diff file of the text:
>> >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555-diff.html
>> >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
>> >> 
>> >> Diff of the XML: 
>> >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9555-xmldiff1.html
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Tracking progress
>> >> -----------------
>> >> 
>> >> The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
>> >>    https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9555
>> >> 
>> >> Please let us know if you have any questions.  
>> >> 
>> >> Thank you for your cooperation,
>> >> 
>> >> RFC Editor
>> >> 
>> >> --------------------------------------
>> >> RFC9555 (draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-vcard-13)
>> >> 
>> >> Title            : JSContact: Converting from and to vCard
>> >> Author(s)        : M. Loffredo, R. Stepanek
>> >> WG Chair(s)      : Bron Gondwana, Daniel Migault
>> >> Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Francesca Palombini
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> > 
>> > <rfc9555.xml>
>> 
>> 
> 
> <rfc9555.xml>