Re: [calsify] Need feedback to complete JSContact Last Call Review

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

My suggestion is that we move forward with the publication while checking
with the IANA and the RFC Editor how to best handle this if that causes an
issue.
Yours,
Daniel


On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 8:11 AM Robert Stepanek <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> We just published new versions for the RFC
> documents draft-ietf-calext-jscontact, draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-vcard
> and draft-ietf-calext-vcard-jscontact-extensions:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/calext/documents/
>
> These versions address all but one Last Call feedback item we got.
> Francesca, Bron, Daniel, could you please let us know how to proceed on
> this one remaining item? Please see below.
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023, at 8:02 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
> Document: draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-vcard-06
> Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
> Review Date: 2023-03-29
> IETF LC End Date: 2023-04-07
> IESG Telechat date: ?
>
> 7) NIT:
>
> IdNits reports the following of significance:
>
> [..]
>
> ** There are 30 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
> one being 18 characters in excess of 72.
>
>
> We now shortened long lines in all examples and art work. The remaining
> long line warnings are due the plain text rendering of the table layout
> that we chose in the IANA considerations section. We have no control over
> how these are rendered and would need to change to a list-based or other
> layout for more control about line lengths.
>
> Before we spend effort on doing that, we would first like to understand
> what's best for IANA to process these documents? Is the current table
> layout for registries preferred, just as we did for RFC 8984 (JSCalendar)?
> For IETF, do the long lines in prevent us from proceeding with publication?
>
> Thanks,
> Robert
>


-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson