Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review for draft-ietf-calext-extensions-03

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,

Thank you for your review.


On 21/06/2016 12:48, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area 
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by 
> the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like 
> any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wiki.tools.ietf.org_area_gen_trac_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=CwICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=azY-8O9zKU_qyQsIatC9huyRk-QxiYF2J3tY-yt8SWE&s=Lejj6aBY4lSWw3Rk7wGB75sQItp6gprPZgz3nBBp4-c&e=%20>>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-calext-extensions-03
>
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
>
> Review Date: 6/21/16
>
> IETF LC End Date: 6/22/16
>
> IESG Telechat date: 7/7/16
>
> Summary: A clear document, almost ready from the Gen-ART point of 
> view. I recommend to clarify the two minor issues below before approval.
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
>
> 1.Should not this document be marked as ‘Updates RFC 5545’? The 
> document recommends that all properties not defined in 5545 always 
> include a “VALUE” parameter if the type is other than “TEXT” It also 
> modifies some existing properties and defines new properties and 
> elements that bring into the standard extension elements added by 
> vendors into their specification.
>
This is a good question. Cyrus?
>
> 2.I had a hard time understanding some of the details in 5.7 
> (REFRESH-INTERVAL Property). These may be however due to my lack of 
> familiarity with the style of iCal definitions and notations – so only 
> explanations may be sufficient. First I do not understand what is 
> covered under Property Parameters: what means ‘IANA and non-standard 
> property parameters’
>
These are defined in RFC 5545. There is some text and ABNF covering 
these. Basically these property parameters are for extensibility.
>
> that can be defined here – and why here? Maybe an example would help. 
> Second in the format definition: dur-value … consisting of a positive 
> duration of time – should not units be specified here as well? Last, I 
> did not understand VALUE=DURATION:P1W – maybe it’s just me missing the 
> notation
>
I think both of these are defined in RFC 5545.

Best Regards,
Alexey