Re: [calsify] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-vcard-07: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Stepanek <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, we updated the document accordingly. Details below.

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023, at 1:35 PM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker wrote:
> Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-vcard-07: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-vcard/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-vcard-07
> 
> CC @larseggert
> 
> Thanks to Russ Housley for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/8_hl1kpXskr0y8aUmQzzSG8W5sE)
> 
> ## Discuss
> 
> ### Missing "Updates" explanation
> 
> This document updates RFC6350, but does not seem to include explanatory text
> about this in the abstract.

Done

> 
> ## Comments
> 
> ### Section 2.8.6, paragraph 4
> ```
>      SOCIALPROFILE;SERVICE-TYPE=Twitter:https://twitter.com/ietf
> 
>      "onlineServices": {
>        ...
>        "OS-1": {
>          "@type": "OnlineService",
>          "service": "Twitter",
>          "user": "https://twitter.com/ietf",
>          "kind": "uri"
>        }
>      }
> ```
> Might be better to use an example domain here?

Done.

> 
> ### Uncited references
> 
> Document updates `RFC6350`, but does not cite it as a reference, which is a bit
> odd.

done

> 
> ## Nits
> 
> All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
> address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
> automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool) so there
> will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
> did with these suggestions.
> 
> ### Outdated references
> 
> Document references `draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-08`, but `-09` is the latest
> available revision.

This may be an artifact due to the order in which we published the RFC drafts.

> 
> ### URLs
> 
> These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:
> 
> * http://www.iit.cnr.it

done

> 
> ### Grammar/style

We fixed all.