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

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Michael for addressing all my comments.

Best regards

-éric

On 14/02/2022, 22:44, "Michael Douglass" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Thank you for your comments - addressed below

    On 2/7/22 06:07, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
    > 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.
    Thank you
    >
    > 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.
    Indeed
    >
    > 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.
    Not sure how to dealk with the rfc2119 nit - the section is there. I've 
    dealt with the rest
    >
    > I also support Erik Kline's comment about the use of "https" everywhere.
    Fixed
    >
    > ## Section 4
    >
    > It would be nice to add some explanations around the direction of the arrow.
    I've added some text to the preceding paragraphs.
    >
    > Figure 2, I like the example, but the graphic has 2 elements while the example
    > text has 3.
    I'll remove the peas...
    >
    > # 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 ?
    It's defined in 5545 - I've added a reference


    Thank you.

    >
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > calsify mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify