[calsify] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-calext-ical-relations-09: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-calext-ical-relations-09: 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/blog/handling-iesg-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-ical-relations/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. It appears to be useful
especially if calendaring applications want to morph into project management
style of calendaring.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Bron Gondwana for the shepherd's write-up including the
section about the WG consensus.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-calext-ical-relations-09.txt
flags multiple errors and warnings. All of them look easy to address.

I also support Erik Kline's comment about the use of "https" everywhere.

## Section 4

It would be nice to add some explanations around the direction of the arrow.

Figure 2, I like the example, but the graphic has 2 elements while the example
text has 3.

# Section 6.2

Even if obvious, "dur-value" is not described in the text of this section.

May I also assume that CALEXT has duration types ? So, that there is no need to
describe the syntex of this value ?