Re: [calsify] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-calext-eventpub-extensions-17: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> 5545 says in section 2 "enumerated property values, and property parameter values are case-insensitive."
> - thus ACTIVE and aCtIvE are intended to be the same.
>
> However, jscalendar - which we need to be able to map to and from says:(Section 3) "Property names and
> values are case-sensitive."

I don't see a problem here: clearly, mapping from iCalendar to
jsCalendar will fold to lower case, and mapping from jsCalendar to
iCalendar will preserve lower case.  Do you see a problem (as opposed
to a "Gee, why did we make them different?" question)?

> Section 11.2: The rules for making registrations into both the existing
> registries and these new ones are striking.  RFC 8126 doesn't even create a
> category that is a combination of Expert Review and Standards Action, but
> that's what this spells out.  And I wonder what would happen if we were to
> publish a Standards Track RFC (which has IETF consensus) with which the
> Designated Expert disagreed.  I'm not asking for anything to change here given
> that consistency with the existing registries is probably desirable, but it
> does set an unusually high bar for registrations.
>
> I'm inclined to agree - with all the points. If the general feeling is I should come up with more manageable
> constraints I can do that.

As I've said to Murray off list, I think this is a broader issue that
we should fix in an update of 5545, rather than trying to fix it here.
You aren't actually specifying registration policies in this document,
but are instead using the registration policies in the base iCalendar
by reference.  I think that's the right way to go for now.

Barry