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

Hi,

I apologize for the delayed response. I am willing to ship these documents
by the end of the year, so before everyone is off, I am asking a few
traditional questions to complete the shepherd.

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)?

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.

Yours,
Daniel

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 11:46 AM Robert Stepanek <rsto=
40fastmailteam.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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
> calsify@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify
>

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson