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

[Robert Stepanek <[e-mail]>]

Hi Karen,

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024, at 8:50 PM, Karen Moore wrote:
> 1) We updated this sentence for clarity; please let us know if it is agreeable or if you prefer otherwise.
> 
> Original: 
>   Implementations MUST take care to quote the name part, 
>   if otherwise the part would not be a valid param-value
>   (see Section 3.3 of [RFC6350]).
> 
> Current:
>   Implementations MUST take care to quote the name part;
>   if otherwise, the part will not be a valid "param-value" 
>   (see Section 3.3 of [RFC6350]).

Great, thanks.

> 
> 2) Is the semicolon after “param-value” needed, or can it be deleted?
> 
> Original:
>      created-param = "CREATED" "=" param-value ;
>                   ; a valid TIMESTAMP of Section 4.3.5 of [RFC6350]
> 
> Perhaps:
>      created-param = "CREATED" "=" param-value 
>                   ; a valid TIMESTAMP of Section 4.3.5 of RFC 6350

The semicolon can be deleted indeed.

> 
> 3) Is  "This property is defined by the following notation:" needed? There are 15 format definitions, but this phrase only appears in 5  instances. Should all instances be removed for consistency, or do you prefer to keep it as is?
> 
> Original:
>   Format definition:  This property is defined by the following 
>        notation:
> 
>        pronouns       = "PRONOUNS" pronouns-param ":" text
> 
> Perhaps:
>   Format definition: 
> 
>       pronouns       = "PRONOUNS" pronouns-param ":” text

The phrase it not needed. Please remove all instances for consistency.

Thanks,
Robert