Re: [calsify] Feedback on draft-ietf-calext-ical-relations

Michael Douglass <mikeadouglass@gmail.com> Mon, 08 November 2021 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mikeadouglass@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5703A040A; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 13:06:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.428
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.428 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-3.33, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 60kR37hpNwoI; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 13:05:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf34.google.com (mail-qv1-xf34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 989DA3A048D; Mon, 8 Nov 2021 13:05:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf34.google.com with SMTP id b11so12789910qvm.7; Mon, 08 Nov 2021 13:05:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=R5Fl/6mxZeOY3TK3FxOVM3sAMWU6HvJUUc33s01VhQQ=; b=pj5GZeaG4jdpP5TS13c27Rtt6oQiamcVjvMRlzG7HYclYIlgAd50RvsjYoihrsTabF O0f9R2AU3EHhRlkk6XD95ZJGmxZGOYufHfBOWrIpcTBjlNN11geO2griLEDJBAfxyEuX Ud7hdclT+sptNzju5oCs0MVn5dnDbWoTGuHlp9vEj4UzjgvrK5uxTCKOPvoLRWa8zDfa hbu+ErQsBDe6GOHWMeRLtO2bEIIV/P+YDENzo7J/XQI07a5MsLgzRxrEFnGKYuAkE07h nxvo0DYDV/OMYO45Hr0RYMtytYYKTKwCoNGxejywmHrMQ4URSjNzbJjWoprk6canSgc/ 3OUA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=R5Fl/6mxZeOY3TK3FxOVM3sAMWU6HvJUUc33s01VhQQ=; b=RTNhKEoXZxhfj+/UG5bgDSdUYFfNYRVmddHMNsUNhM+qHArjrmkq9ycNNv5mNPhIiY QMOmMVfIgBrcer1PHGWhymXinruSTbn4FapzVFDPl5qEuqU9XepzX2GkLjp2xEYFLTf7 x1zyKjMel5wOAzrbOhoPhmz5tZlOVzv4ulUEBqtWvecoGhwEn1xCdcfojU+061gr92P0 JCQ23/4bjg0p5BFjOxO0kvnkMAuIW7qdGL1Lr/kGcEBzP0e6k3pF2l1nw72Gp8LSIyFa rZBi4bID8QX+ounD4K27QIGf9oh2HnlNJ55T2Fj6+x25PY+z/J3B0GYzF4Il8gIjlAkk sl4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533UkbJY5raB9L7hR1yML25lrKcvWskRYLNCAzpsXBQ2t2mEjye+ diBQAxF4SyaMOi9xEVe91OBUaP1zLnXKTIXs
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxcs9VJI3hx1WlPsN/tbksTJn64trjXG65mxmBmLWG4MtB0tLlsbcGv74N2Mf8KFPVS7zbJ9g==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:529e:: with SMTP id kj30mr1978680qvb.50.1636405554692; Mon, 08 Nov 2021 13:05:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.149] (cpe-74-70-70-237.nycap.res.rr.com. [74.70.70.237]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id ay12sm10843630qkb.35.2021.11.08.13.05.53 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Nov 2021 13:05:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20d87e65-0f84-a37b-74d6-5c0c7230ce4e@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 16:05:52 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-calext-ical-relations@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-calext-ical-relations@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "calsify@ietf.org" <calsify@ietf.org>, "calext-chairs@ietf.org" <calext-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <CD95B935-9A4D-4FD8-8BA1-84A600F6FB0E@mnot.net> <HE1PR07MB421724DC84A7138DA01500B698869@HE1PR07MB4217.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <df1a8dd1-1782-d555-36f3-bb9c06b4cb61@gmail.com> <BE133796-75FA-4A93-81A7-6CC860D21D09@mnot.net>
From: Michael Douglass <mikeadouglass@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BE133796-75FA-4A93-81A7-6CC860D21D09@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/k9WVnT4KtAvcnQwyzfIkZ9_2mms>
Subject: Re: [calsify] Feedback on draft-ietf-calext-ical-relations
X-BeenThere: calsify@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Calendaring and Scheduling Standards Simplification <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: Mon, 08 Nov 2021 21:06:01 -0000

On 10/29/21 20:39, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> On 29 Oct 2021, at 3:37 am, Michael Douglass <mikeadouglass@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Two alternative paths forward would address this concern:
>>>
>>> 1) Define this as a serialisation of 8288 links
>>> 2) Use a separate registry
>> A third path might be to specify how it differs while trying to come closer to 1.
>>
>> I think having 2 registries defining essentially the same concept would be more confusing and lead to more misalignments. At least this way we only define it once.
>>
>> I accept the point on context and attributes. I think we can deal with that - e.g. context is the referencing entity and define a mapping of existing parameters to the 8288 defined attributes (e.g. "title"->"label")
> That sounds like you're defining a serialisation of 8288 links.
It probably ended up that way. I think it's pretty close as it stands 
but not explicit. I'll add some text to specify how iCalendar parameters 
map on to link header attributes - if there is a mapping - e.g. LABEL 
<-> title and that specifications that wish to use LINK types with 
attributes specify how to map paramaters
>
>> RFC 8288 in Appendix A specifies how it differs from 2 other linking methods.
> That's noting how different _serialisations_ work -- they are different ways to express the same data model.
>
> Another question to ask is whether it makes sense for the link types currently registered to show up here, and vice versa (whether the ones you propose to register make sense in HTML, Atom, Link headers, etc.). That might help guide the answer.

I've not done an exhaustive search through but at the very least 
privacy-policy and terms-of-service would satisfy a need that was 
expressed some time ago for published events. copyright, edit, 
edit-form, license, payment all look useful.

And all the interval... link types look more properly like calendaring 
relations


>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>