[calsify] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-calext-ical-relations-09: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-calext-ical-relations-09: 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/blog/handling-iesg-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-relations/



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

Thank you to Catherine Meadows for the SECDIR review.

** Abstract.  The abstract text needs to mention that it is updating RFC5545.

** Section 6.2.  Typo. s/temporaly/temporarily/

** Section 8.1.  Per the example,
“CONCEPT:http://example.com/event-types/arts/music” should this use https?

** Section 10.  Thanks for noting the RFC3986 considerations on using URIs. 
Digging a bit more into the implementation approaches of the CONCEPT parameter,
would clients be expected dereference the taxonomy URI in real-time?   I’m
wondering if there would be a chance for tracking mechanism akin to a “web bug”
on a web page or in HTML email.  For example, an .ics file is sent via an
asynchronous mechanism (email) with a CONCEPT URI to something unique/unknown
to the end-client and to a destination controlled by the sender or even a third
party.  Could it function as a read-receipt or to harvest an identifier for the
system the client is on (IP address)?