Re: [calsify] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-calext-valarm-extensions-05: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

I brought up the X- issue during AD Evaluation, and we talked about
it.  The problem is that the base document, RFC 5545, has them (as it
predates BCP 178), and removing them from the ABNF here is likely to
cause other problems.  We decided that the best approach is to put the
issue into the queue for an update to 5545, which is needed for other
reasons as well.

Barry

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 2:00 AM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-calext-valarm-extensions-05: 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-valarm-extensions/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This document appears to enable (or continue) support for the notion of
> extension properties prefixed by "X-" (via the "x-prop" ABNF token).  That
> seems contrary to BCP 178.  I realize this is just continuing in what was done
> in RFC 5545, but should it be dropped her?
>
> Other than this one concern, this is really well written.  Nice work.
>
>
>