[calsify] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-calext-availability-03: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-calext-availability-03: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-availability/



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

- General: I agree with Stephen's discuss comment. (And have some
additional comments on that section, below.)

- 7.1.1, first paragraph: "A value of "calendar-availability" in the
   DAV response header MUST indicate that the server supports all MUST
   level requirements specified in this document."

The nested MUSTs are confusing. Do I correctly understand the intent to
be that a value of “calendar-availability”  means the server supports
this document? (It’s not necessary to say “supports all the MUSTs”,
because that is the definition of supporting this document.)

-7.2.2, first paragraph:  Does this draft need to update 4791?

- 7.2.4, conformance: "Support for this
      property is REQUIRED."

What is required to support it? Does this mean something more than
“Servers that support it are REQUIRED to support it?”

"only a single "VAVAILABILITY" component
      MUST be present in the property."

Language of the form of “only one MUST be present” is ambiguous. Does
this mean the property MUST have exactly one? MUST NOT have more than
one? 

-8, first paragraph:"servers MAY limit
   the complexity"
Is MAY strong enough here? Does it make since to ever allow arbitrarily
complex information?

-9, first paragraph: Does this imply a requirement for confidentiality
protection on the wire? (Does caldae already require that?)

- 2nd paragraph: Seems like this could say more. For example. doesn’t
this imply that a system needs to give users a way to specify who should
get more or less information?

- last paragraph: I don't think this is an appropriate use of a 2119
"MUST". Please consider something of the form of "Privacy Considerations
in [refs] also apply."

- 10.1 and 10.2: The referenced sections of 5545 do not contain the
registry definitions. (Rather, they contain the initial populations.)