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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments-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-caldav-attachments/



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

Loosely related to Mirja's comment:

The abstract mentions why this is informational. That information should be
repeated in the Introduction. It would be helpful to see that expanded (in the
introduction) to explain what the non-standard bits are, and if there are
preferred approaches (whether standards or potential standards.)

- 3.12.2: "Access to the managed attachments store in a calendar object resource
   SHOULD be restricted to only those calendar users who have access to
   that calendar object either directly, or indirectly (via being an
   attendee who would receive a scheduling message)."

Why not MUST? When might it make sense to allow others to access attachments?