Re: [calsify] Gen-art LC (and telechat) review: draft-ietf-calext-rscale-04

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

On 3/3/15 11:21 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> Thanks for your review.
>
> --On March 3, 2015 at 11:02:39 AM -0600 Robert Sparks 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Summary: Ready modulo one nit
>>
>> This draft reads easily (describing the  actual work converting between
>> calendars is hard, but this draft doesn't have to talk about that).
>>
>> The body of the draft says it updates 5546 and 4791, but those are not
>> listed in the Updates: line in the header?
>
> There was a lot of debate about exactly what should go in the 
> "Updates" header. In the end we settled on this:
>
> 1) The draft does "update" 5545/6321/7265 in the sense that its 
> changes do not use any of the standard extension points that those 
> specs have defined (i.e., 5545 never defined how an RRULE could be 
> extended with new elements). Thus 5545/6321/7265 ought to appear in 
> the "Updates" header.
>
> 2) The draft clarifies what should happen when rscale is used with 
> iTIP (5546) - but it does not introduce any new protocol elements - it 
> simply suggests the appropriate behaviors to use. Thus 5546 does not 
> appear in the "Updates" header.
>
> 3) The draft uses existing extension mechanisms in CalDAV (4791) to 
> explain how it is used in that environment. Thus 4791 does not appear 
> in the "Updates" header.
>
> Now you are right that the introduction does use "updates" in the 
> prose for 5546 and 4791. Perhaps it would be better to use "clarifies 
> use of" for 5546 and "extends" for 4791. So I am proposing the 
> following change:
>
>      It updates iCalendar [RFC5545], xCal [RFC6321], and jCal
>      [RFC7265], to extend the "RRULE" property definition.
>
>      It clarifies use of iTIP [RFC5546] to specify how the extended 
> "RRULE"
>      property should be handled in iTIP messages.
>
>      It extends CalDAV [RFC4791] to specify how the extended "RRULE"
>      property can be supported by CalDAV servers and clients.
>
> Would that be better?
I think so.

You might also consider including the exposition above in the shepherd 
writeup to help avoid multiple ADs asking the same question later.
>
>