IETF Logo Mail Archive

[calsify] JSCalendar: what to do with JSTask?

Robert Stepanek <rsto@fastmailteam.com> Thu, 30 August 2018 09:09 UTC

Return-Path: <rsto@fastmailteam.com>
X-Original-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12321277BB for <calsify@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 02:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HrfpvuOsjdEI for <calsify@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 02:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18A2C130DC0 for <calsify@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 02:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from betaweb1.internal (betaweb1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.10]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1134821BE2 for <calsify@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 05:09:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from betaweb1 ([::ffff:10.202.2.10]) by betaweb1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 30 Aug 2018 05:09:19 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=ho6+fseCOIeByahUi2LVI0401gYW2 gQex4Du4//TrJg=; b=qr04o+AYryKyjr7bh5QSMl6+7//UBwXgQ6Dk5/066JUNO RE6RC94IPA+5yvnLkyJZaY5WbILf44OsqTDQIGGMHafveUdZOmygb+obQsw6C7ry NLQc5kIa3JL2fNpiprO0DmugzemTFqUlnXfuokdF2z9ARJ0X9I5Ig4f8BLpNPQB/ P0VeFNVMFvDL4zKW1A1M47OOUWP3FPI3aOPM6rDJNGI4MEbOA4XCUPNrW8o72Acf E+j4lTWRbl4d6oPBtNPun/UVLJj+LUvlj7W/iwoEwu/X5NDcpQCdX9JvH72yw0Pf ASX7E3g2sjjZ39w57M7/fOFYQ3CPcy1OfkPmF1OkA==
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:PrSHWxLSP0vtqiAS-IPSAm-jGNSbwkaRjm7kwVlU9OLDEQyN0M1qDQ> <xmx:PrSHW4owk0iHRTxO_DoF2N_vuEnTas3aTKSDXr8uR5pFDS01BzTTzw> <xmx:PrSHWwLRIBXOwk4zrmXp6cuWp6Dc3YQnnr2IIeUr8JIBelSLLh411w> <xmx:PrSHW9SGrhm3KwNdHbyqsrEYCiFFMTFpyNe_YiBhPdUq_crn9Qxoag> <xmx:PrSHW_s53uOxLxY2XGYJ5xOhGK_3A7RVFh0GecWB2GBEobZYeVCytQ> <xmx:P7SHW3k9X9PlaeLMKjgxChIKUfBqeQejdXuDgtgaBdwrUveNU9QRkg>
X-ME-Sender: <xms:PrSHWxRrxYux2ULDHJxCzWE1siWPqE3jnkIOFoEwhcBJbMQ8JU1eFg>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id AB752E229E; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 05:09:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1535620158.162328.1491072080.2C47352D@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Robert Stepanek <rsto@fastmailteam.com>
To: calsify@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-76c9aaa1
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 11:09:18 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/91zmrGATe-RysUr6tIKUyrr6PHM>
Subject: [calsify] JSCalendar: what to do with JSTask?
X-BeenThere: calsify@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: <calsify.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/calsify>, <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/calsify/>
List-Post: <mailto:calsify@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify>, <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 09:09:23 -0000

I would like to discuss the status of JSTask and its readiness for acceptance:

The JSCalendar specification defines object types for events, tasks and groups. The event and group objects have underwent years of discussion and there seems to be general consensus of their definition. However, the task object hasn't received that much attention. Much of the definition of JSTtask properties is based on a pending iCalendar VTODO RFC update: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-apthorp-ical-tasks-01

With JSTask most likely becoming a standard before its updated iCalendar counterpart, I wonder if the current JSTask specification is all that stable? Is there the risk of  defining a snapshot of an ongoing discussion? If there is, we could split off JSTask from the JSCalendar specification. The current specification should it make easy to define additional object types in separate RFC documents.

Looking forward to your feedback.

Robert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email