Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-calext-eventpub-extensions-12

[Michael Douglass <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the comments:

All useful - and yes - I'll add the confirmation code.

I'll incorporate these changes

On 4/23/19 09:02, Daniel Migault wrote:
> Thanks for the review Rich!
> Yours,
> Daniel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Salz via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 2:14 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-calext-eventpub-extensions-12
>
> Reviewer: Rich Salz
> Review result: Has Nits
>
> This is the SECDIR last-call review, intended to be input to the Security AD's.
>
> Ready with nits.
>
> The Security Considerations and Privacy Considerations are short, but they seem to reasonably refer to already-published documents.
>
> Following are nits I noticed.
>
> Abstract "a number of new iCalendar properties and components" -> "a new iCalendar component and a number of properties"  Maybe stike "iCalendar"
>
> Sec 1, STRUCTURED-DATA. In my opinion the confirmation code would be the most useful new info :)
>
> Sec 1, SOURCE Is it redefined or extended?
>
> Sec 2, para 2.  "In a break with this 'tradition' ..." --> "Breaking with this practice, ..."
>
> Sec 3, "When a calendar client receives a calendar component" Should the second calendar be CALENDAR? Should the first be "iCalendar"?
>
> Sec 3.1.1, uppercase "vcard"?
>
> Sec 3.1.2.1 "non of which" --> "none of which"
>
> Sec 4 Perhaps add a sentence saying where this syntax is defined. Is this the complete iCalendar spec or is it just changing a few things?
>
> Sec 5.1, etc "as laid down in" Is kind of informal wording.
>
> Sec 6, the notation has "value=URI" but the example has "URL" (Sec 7.3, etc., uses URI in both parts)
>
> Sec 10, "applications using" Is "acting on" better?
>
>