Re: [calsify] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-calext-valarm-extensions-05: (with COMMENT)

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, that's what I figured was the outcome, but I thought I'd ask.

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 6:54 AM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I brought up the X- issue during AD Evaluation, and we talked about
> it.  The problem is that the base document, RFC 5545, has them (as it
> predates BCP 178), and removing them from the ABNF here is likely to
> cause other problems.  We decided that the best approach is to put the
> issue into the queue for an update to 5545, which is needed for other
> reasons as well.
>
> Barry
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 2:00 AM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-calext-valarm-extensions-05: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-valarm-extensions/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > This document appears to enable (or continue) support for the notion of
> > extension properties prefixed by "X-" (via the "x-prop" ABNF token).
> That
> > seems contrary to BCP 178.  I realize this is just continuing in what
> was done
> > in RFC 5545, but should it be dropped her?
> >
> > Other than this one concern, this is really well written.  Nice work.
> >
> >
> >
>