Re: [calsify] Working Group Last call for jscontact drafts

[Robert Stepanek <[e-mail]>]

Hi Daniel,

To the best of my knowledge there are no IPR disclosures to be filed.

Thanks,
Robert

On Wed, Dec 21, 2022, at 6:25 PM, Daniel Migault wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
> Thanks Roberts, I actually forgot the item that made me write the previous email. Please state if you are aware of any IPR, and if so please feel an IPR disclosure. 
> 
> Yours, 
> Daniel
> 
> 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
>     property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
>     the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
>     not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
>     to publicly-available messages when applicable.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:44 AM Robert Stepanek <rsto=[e-mail]> wrote:
>> __
>> Hi Daniel,
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022, at 3:17 AM, Daniel Migault wrote:
>>> 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
>>>    the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
>>>    plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
>>>    either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
>>>    (where)?
>> 
>> While drafting the spec, I built an experimental implementation. We definitely will implement JSContact at Fastmail.
>> 
>>> 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
>>>     listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
>>>     is greater than five, please provide a justification.
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robert
>> 
>>> 
>>> Yours, 
>>> Daniel
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 11:46 AM Robert Stepanek <rsto=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> __
>>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2022, at 4:41 PM, Robert Stepanek wrote:
>>>>>>  * Section 2.2.4: Referring to my mail from 18th October, it is still not possible to model a contact with a department only. The Organization object cannot be created without a name. I still suggest making the name property optional (even though it can be an empty string. Maybe that would be the recommended route here?).
>>>>> I haven't had time to check with Mario, but I agree that we should make name optional. We'll need to sort out in the vCard conversion RFC how to deal with that, but setting an empty string on FN might work.
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, I misread your proposal. Yes, we do want to allow name in Organization to not be set. In fact, we already had updated the draft to state "at least one of `name` and `units` *MUST* be set" , but the definition of the "name" property was still "mandatory" instead of "optional". I will update the doc.
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> calsify mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Daniel Migault
>>> Ericsson
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> calsify mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> calsify mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Migault
> Ericsson