Re: Gen-art LC (and telechat) review: draft-ietf-calext-rscale-04

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 03 March 2015 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 759431AC3FC; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 09:54:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DxzfR2_Z17gl; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 09:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 339FA1A870A; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 09:54:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-71-96-107-228.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.96.107.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t23HsEGo053184 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 3 Mar 2015 11:54:15 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-71-96-107-228.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.96.107.228] claimed to be unnumerable.local
Message-ID: <54F5F541.3090107@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:54:09 -0600
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org, calsify@ietf.org, draft-ietf-calext-rscale@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Gen-art LC (and telechat) review: draft-ietf-calext-rscale-04
References: <54F5E92F.7030002@nostrum.com> <619D561548E6D87707B49948@caldav.corp.apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <619D561548E6D87707B49948@caldav.corp.apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/7zBvwvdS4UtIfLp8eOPHEWZFbhw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:54:24 -0000

On 3/3/15 11:21 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> Thanks for your review.
>
> --On March 3, 2015 at 11:02:39 AM -0600 Robert Sparks 
> <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
>> Summary: Ready modulo one nit
>>
>> This draft reads easily (describing the  actual work converting between
>> calendars is hard, but this draft doesn't have to talk about that).
>>
>> The body of the draft says it updates 5546 and 4791, but those are not
>> listed in the Updates: line in the header?
>
> There was a lot of debate about exactly what should go in the 
> "Updates" header. In the end we settled on this:
>
> 1) The draft does "update" 5545/6321/7265 in the sense that its 
> changes do not use any of the standard extension points that those 
> specs have defined (i.e., 5545 never defined how an RRULE could be 
> extended with new elements). Thus 5545/6321/7265 ought to appear in 
> the "Updates" header.
>
> 2) The draft clarifies what should happen when rscale is used with 
> iTIP (5546) - but it does not introduce any new protocol elements - it 
> simply suggests the appropriate behaviors to use. Thus 5546 does not 
> appear in the "Updates" header.
>
> 3) The draft uses existing extension mechanisms in CalDAV (4791) to 
> explain how it is used in that environment. Thus 4791 does not appear 
> in the "Updates" header.
>
> Now you are right that the introduction does use "updates" in the 
> prose for 5546 and 4791. Perhaps it would be better to use "clarifies 
> use of" for 5546 and "extends" for 4791. So I am proposing the 
> following change:
>
>      It updates iCalendar [RFC5545], xCal [RFC6321], and jCal
>      [RFC7265], to extend the "RRULE" property definition.
>
>      It clarifies use of iTIP [RFC5546] to specify how the extended 
> "RRULE"
>      property should be handled in iTIP messages.
>
>      It extends CalDAV [RFC4791] to specify how the extended "RRULE"
>      property can be supported by CalDAV servers and clients.
>
> Would that be better?
I think so.

You might also consider including the exposition above in the shepherd 
writeup to help avoid multiple ADs asking the same question later.
>
>