[calsify] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments-03: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 17 August 2017 02:14 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments@ietf.org, calext-chairs@ietf.org, mozilla@kewis.ch, calsify@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150293606942.12436.9685335940269519919.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:14:29 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/vd0LZIW0tICa5n7N1cjYatmJvGo>
Subject: [calsify] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments-03: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments-03: 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-caldav-attachments/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding concerns from others on the topic of document status: even without
the ARTART review, I would have DISCUSSed the top-level issues identified by
Julian, and in particular the hardcoding of query strings. I would be quite
uncomfortable with the precedent of a PS document going out in that form. I'm a
little squeamish about having it in an Informational document, but given the
apparently pervasive deployment indicated by section 7, I suppose it's better
to have it documented than not.

Section 3.2 is ambiguous about whether the use of
"calendar-managed-attachments-no-recurrance" is in addition to or instead of
"calendar-managed-attachments." In this sentence, please replace "the server
MUST include" with "the server MUST also include" or "the server MUST instead
include", depending on what is intended here.

I'd be happy if section 3.12.3 indicated that such redirects are performed with
307 or 308 responses, as other redirect codes change the method from POST to
GET.

Presumably, when section 7 is removed, section 11.3 is to also be removed? The
document should indicate this.

Please expand iTIP (iCalendar Transport-independent Interoperability Protocol)
on first use.

[calsify] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf… Adam Roach