Re: [calsify] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-30: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> If this is "successor to iCalendar", is an Obsoletes: relationship
>> appropriate?
>>
>> What is the status of jCal (RFC 7265) now that this work is published?
>> Should jCal be moved to Historic?
>
> Probably. How is this done?

I'm not sure which of Ben's suggestions (or both) you're saying "probably" to.

For the former, you would just include ' obsoletes="5545,7986" ' in
the <rfc> element of xml2rfc.  But I don't think the time is here yet
to do that.  At this point, the *idea* is that JSCalendar would
eventually supplant iCalendar, but we'll have to see how the
deployment goes before we formally say that iCalendar is no longer
considered a current standard.

For the latter, see the "RFC Status Changes" page
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc-status-changes>.  There's a
button at the top that I can see, which says "New RFC status change",
but that might only be there for ADs.  If the WGCs can do it, you
create a new status change document that simply says that jCal is not
widely implemented and seldom used, and JSCalendar is the standard way
to represent calendars in JSON going forward, so jCal is changed to
Historic.  Then you submit that to me for processing.  If the WGCs
can't do it, they should make a formal request to that effect to me
(giving me brief text to put into the status change doc) with CC to
the WG mailing list, and I'll take care of it.

Barry