[calsify] Re: Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-calext-ical-tasks-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Michael Douglass <[e-mail]>]

See below for comments.

The updated spec is visible at 
https://calconnect.github.io/cc-ical-tasks/documents/draft-ietf-calext-ical-tasks.html


On 7/20/25 00:13, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-calext-ical-tasks-14: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-ical-tasks/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (revised ballot for -14; thank you for the update)
>
> ** (identified in -13, still applies in -14) Section 10 – this section is
> defining new properties in a formal grammar.  Please explicitly mention that
> these are in ABNF and provide a normative reference. Perhaps:
>
> [RFC5234]
> Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications:
> ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
Added some text in section 1.1
>
> **(-14)  Section 15.3.
>     Additional values MAY be used, provided the process described in
>     Section 8.2.1 of [RFC5545] is used to register them, using the
>     template in Section 8.2.6 of [RFC5545].
>
> Thanks for adding this new language in -14.  I’m still having trouble finding
> the guidance to the designated expert on registration guidance.  The closest I
> can find is the language in Section 8.2.1:
>
>     When a registration is rejected
>     with cause, it can be re-submitted if the concerns listed in the
>     cause are addressed.
>
> What are the “concerns” the DE should be reviewing for?
Is this something for us to address? Or should a 5545 revision make some 
statement if none exists?
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you to Reese Enghardt for the GENART review.
>
> ** (identified in -13, still applies to -14) Section 15.6.  Table 6 shows that
> the name of the first column of the “Participation Statuses” registry is
> “Value”.  This is incorrect. It should be updated to read “Participation Status”
Updated - thank you
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> calsify mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]