[calsify] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-calext-valarm-extensions-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 25 February 2021 01:25 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: calsify@ietf.org
Delivered-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 455AB3A0ABB; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 17:25:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-calext-valarm-extensions@ietf.org, calext-chairs@ietf.org, calsify@ietf.org, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, Daniel Migault <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>, mglt.ietf@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.26.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <161421635519.4540.12134094030905577707@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 17:25:55 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/Z_GWPpNlDx3-jk-LYd11eMjWZNw>
Subject: [calsify] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-calext-valarm-extensions-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: calsify@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: <calsify.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/calsify>, <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/calsify/>
List-Post: <mailto:calsify@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify>, <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 01:25:55 -0000
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-calext-valarm-extensions-05: Discuss 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-valarm-extensions/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Please update to reflect the changes made in draft-ietf-calext-eventpub-extensions-17 (e.g., there is no longer STRUCTURED-LOCATION and VLOCATION plays a similar role). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [edited to add a comment section, now that I finished my way through the document] A lot of these improvements look familiar from draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar :) Please note the question about interactions between "geo:" URIs and (presumed mobile) vehicles, in Section 8; that was almost a Discuss. Section 3 Is the new syntax for VALARM claimed to be exactly equivalent or just "basically the same" as the RFC 5545 definition? Section 6.1 Description: This property is used to specify when an alarm was last sent or acknowledged. This allows clients to determine when a (editorial) the "last sent" part only becomes clear in the second paragraph; perhaps "when an alarm was last acknowledge (or sent, if acknowledgment is not possible)" would help clarify (and would also do better to set up the rest of this paragraph that mostly assumes the "acknowledged" case). Section 7 To "snooze" an alarm, clients create a new "VALARM" component within the parent component of the "VALARM" that was triggered and is being "snoozed" (i.e., as a "sibling" component of the "VALARM" being snoozed). [...] The way this is written seems to imply something that does not seem correct. That is, the "i.e., as a 'sibling'" seems to imply that VALARM will always exist in a parent/child relationship, with only "child" instances ever actually triggering. Since we only just in this document allow VALARM to have the RELATED-TO property, I don't see how that could be the case. Perhaps it is enough to just say "e.g., as a "sibling" component of the "VALARM" being snoozed", since "e.g." does not imply that the statement applies for all cases, but I would expect some more substantial discussion of the procedures involved when there is just a single alarm being snoozed, and how the first child is created, what needs to be done (if anything else) to create the overarching "parent", etc. The only text I see right now that covers this case is the addition of "UID" if not already present (and UID has to be present if there's a parent/child relationship), but that's not really the same thing. Alternatively, if the "snooze" alarm is itself "snoozed", the client MUST remove the original "snooze" alarm and create a new one, with the appropriate trigger time and relationship set. (This part seems a bit at odds with the "as a 'sibling' text above that I complained about -- if the alarm being triggered is getting removed, it seems hard for it to be a sibling of anything.) Section 7.1 This specification adds the "SNOOZE" relationship type for use with the "RELTYPE" property defined in Section 3.2.15 of [RFC5545]. This is used when relating a "snoozed" "VALARM" component to the original alarm that the "snooze" was generated for. Is this going to be the "parent" or the "sibling" (or potentially either)? Note my previous comment about "sibling"s getting removed... Section 8 "STRUCTURED-LOCATION" [I-D.ietf-calext-eventpub-extensions] - used to indicate the actual location to trigger off, specified using a geo: URI [RFC5870] which allows for two or three coordinate values with an optional uncertainty (nit?) maybe "trigger off of"? "STRUCTURED-LOCATION" [I-D.ietf-calext-eventpub-extensions] - used to indicate the actual location to trigger off, specified using a geo: URI [RFC5870] which allows for two or three coordinate values with an optional uncertainty How do I use a geo: URI to indicate the vehicle to which I (dis)connect via Bluetooth with? Section 8.1 (side note) is there work underway to define proximity triggers for JSCalendar? Description: This property is used to indicate that an alarm has a location-based trigger. Its value identifies the direction of motion used to trigger the alarm. One or more location values MUST be set using "STRUCTURED-LOCATION" properties. (editorial) I don't see how we get "direction of motion" from the rest of the description. What I see described is just, well, a proximity-based trigger, without sensitivity to in what direction the proximity is attained. There are triggers based on whether the distance metric crosses a threshold in one direction or the other, but that's still not directional in a typical 3-dimentional vector sense. Section 8.2 Is there a reason for the "TRIGGER" line to appear twice in the example? Section 9 I think there is also potential for abuse in causing embarassing or otherwise undesired alerts (especially audio ones) when a victim is in a particular location. (But the mitigation is basically the same as for the already-indicated threats.) Section 13 It's not entirely clear to me that RFC 4791 needs to be classified as normative.
- [calsify] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [calsify] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Ken Murchison
- Re: [calsify] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Barry Leiba
- Re: [calsify] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [calsify] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Ken Murchison
- Re: [calsify] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-i… Benjamin Kaduk