vCard Format Specification
draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev-22

[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to this document proceeding as is (at version 22). I still think the implementation community would benefit from a more complete summary of the protocol changes in Appendix A. Thanks for adding the text that makes it clear that the current summary is not intended to be complete.

[Ballot comment]
1) in xCard,
New XML vCard property and parameter element names MUST be lower-case. This is necessary to ensure that round-tripping between XML and plain-text vCard works correctly.
in vCard,
Based on experience with vCard 3 interoperability, it is RECOMMENDED that property and parameter names be upper-case on output.
are these consistent?
2) references need updating (see id-nits)

[Ballot discuss]
Updated Discuss in view of the RFC Editor Note

A fine piece of work, but one small issue need resolution before
publication as an RFC.

---

draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardxml sets two requirements for extensions to
this document:

  It is expected that [...] vCard extensions will also specify
  extensions to the XML format

  New XML vCard property and parameter element names MUST be lower-
  case.

I think you should include these two requirements in this document.

[Ballot discuss]
A fine piece of work, but two small issues need resolution before
publication as an RFC.

---

draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardxml sets two requirements for extensions to
this document:

  It is expected that [...] vCard extensions will also specify
  extensions to the XML format

  New XML vCard property and parameter element names MUST be lower-
  case.

I think you should include these two requirements in this document.

---

RFC 3536 is a downref and I don't see it in the last call announcement.
I'm not sure it needs to be a normative reference.

[Ballot comment]
#1) Section 5.2 & 5.3: r/parameter is optional/parameter is OPTIONAL

#2) Sometimes the document uses ASCII and other it uses US-ASCII.  Was this intentional?

#3) Sec 6.8.1: lots of people use .cer or .pem for X.509 certificates can we change the example to:

  KEY:http://www.example.com/keys/jdoe.cer?

[Ballot discuss]
#1) Sorry to inflict an this on the authors, but I gotta ask:  Do you want to move the obsoleted RFCs to Historic?

#2) The last line in the abstract doesn't match up with the header.  Is 2739 being updated or obsoleted?

#3) Sec 3.1: What should happen if another charset is included?

[Ballot comment]
The discussion following the Gen-ART Review by Kathleen Moriarty on
  8-Apr-2011 lead to the following proposed text:
 
  o  vCards often carry information that can be sensitive (e.g.
    birthday, address, and phone information).  Although vCards have no
    inherent authentication or privacy provisions, they can easily be
    carried by any security mechanism that transfers MIME objects to
    address authentication or privacy (e.g.  S/MIME [RFC5751], OpenPGP
    [RFC4880]).  In cases where the privacy or authenticity of
    information contained in vCard is a concern, the vCard SHOULD be
    transported using one of these secure mechanisms.  The KEY
    property (Section 6.8.1) can be used to transport the public key
    used by these mechanisms.

  I would prefer the use of "confidentiality" instead of "privacy".
  That would better align with the definitions in RFC 2828.

[Ballot comment]
3.3 -
    NON-ASCII = %x80-FF
        ; Use is restricted by UTF-8
       
Why not use UTF8-char and reference RFC 3629?
   
4 -
    TEXT-CHAR = "\\" / "\," / "\n"
              /
        ; Backslashes, commas, and newlines must be encoded.

Is it so bad to expand this out?

    TEXT-CHAR = "\\" / "\," / "\n" / WSP / NON-ASCII
              / %x21-2B / %x2D-5B / %x5D-7E
        ; Backslashes, commas, and newlines must be encoded.

6.1.2/6.1.3 -

    BEGIN-param = 0dummy  ; no parameter allowed
    END-param = 0dummy  ; no parameter allowed
   
    BEGIN-param = 0" "  ; no parameter allowed
    END-param = 0" "  ; no parameter allowed

That looks neater to me.

6.5.1 - Is it worth an informative reference to
draft-lear-iana-timezone-database (approved BCP)?

[Ballot comment]
It would help to point to Appendix A earlier in the document, perhaps with a very high-level overview of what's been updated. An implementer will use Appendix A as a checklist of items to check against code - is it complete? There are changes called out in B (which will be deleted before being published) that don't seem to be reflected in A.

Were there any changes to what 4770 specified?

[Ballot discuss]
Is this document deprecating text/directory? It obsoletes the RFC that defined it, but the only mention is in the media registration of text/vcard as "should be considered deprecated in favor of text/vcard". Why isn't this stated more clearly in the text (particularly the introduction) of the document?

[Ballot discuss]
This is a well-written and clear document. There is one small issue that needs to be fixed and this should be easy. While the Abstract states that 'This document obsoletes RFCs 2425, 2426, 2739, and 4770.' the header includes 'Obsoletes: 2425, 2426, 4770 (if approved)' and 'Updates: 2739 (if approved)'.


'

The document shepherd's writeup is as follows:

###

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Alexey Melnikov

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

This document had sufficient reviews from the VCARDDAV WG.
Additional Apps Area Reviews were requested.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

There is a solid WG consensus behind the document.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts
Checklist and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes. idnits 2.12.11 was used to check the document.
It reports:

Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

== There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses
    in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

These 2 instances are not IP addresses, they are section references.

-- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC4770, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

-- The abstract seems to indicate that this document obsoletes RFC2739, but
    the header doesn't have an 'Obsoletes:' line to match this.

-- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2739, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

These still need to be addressed.


Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

== Line 483 has weird spacing: '... [month  day]...'

== Line 487 has weird spacing: '...  month  day...'

== Line 488 has weird spacing: '...  month  day...'

== Line 490 has weird spacing: '...  month  day...'

== Line 496 has weird spacing: '... = hour  minut...'

== (1 more instance...)

This is done for better ABNF alignment. RFC Editor can advise on whether this is Ok or not.


Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

== Unused Reference: 'RFC2045' is defined on line 3220, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

== Unused Reference: 'RFC4288' is defined on line 3260, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

These are noise, both references are used.

== Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
    draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardxml-08

-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IEEE.754.2008'

Not a down-ref.

** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3536

This should be moved to Informative References.

-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1738
    (Obsoleted by RFC 4248, RFC 4266)

This reference is intentional.

No additonal reviews needed.


(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References are properly split. There are no DownRefs.

There is one Normative reference to another draft
([I-D.ietf-vcarddav-vcardxml]), but both this draft and
[I-D.ietf-vcarddav-vcardxml] are going to be submitted to IESG for
review at the same time.


(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Yes. IANA Considerations section look to be complete and correct.


(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

ABNF was verified with BAP. Some errors were found and fixed.


(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

[redacted -- see ballot writeup]

###

[Note]: changed to 'The document shepherd is Alexey Melnikov.

The shepherd's writeup is as follows:

###

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Alexey Melnikov

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

This document had sufficient reviews from the VCARDDAV WG.
Additional Apps Area Reviews were requested.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

There is a solid WG consensus behind the document.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts
Checklist and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes. idnits 2.12.11 was used to check the document.
It reports:

Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

== There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC5735-compliant IPv4 addresses
    in the document.  If these are example addresses, they should be changed.

These 2 instances are not IP addresses, they are section references.

-- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC4770, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

-- The abstract seems to indicate that this document obsoletes RFC2739, but
    the header doesn't have an 'Obsoletes:' line to match this.

-- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2739, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

These still need to be addressed.


Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

== Line 483 has weird spacing: '... [month  day]...'

== Line 487 has weird spacing: '...  month  day...'

== Line 488 has weird spacing: '...  month  day...'

== Line 490 has weird spacing: '...  month  day...'

== Line 496 has weird spacing: '... = hour  minut...'

== (1 more instance...)

This is done for better ABNF alignment. RFC Editor can advise on whether this is Ok or not.


Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
    to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

== Unused Reference: 'RFC2045' is defined on line 3220, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

== Unused Reference: 'RFC4288' is defined on line 3260, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

These are noise, both references are used.

== Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of
    draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardxml-08

-- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IEEE.754.2008'

Not a down-ref.

** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3536

This should be moved to Informative References.

-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 1738
    (Obsoleted by RFC 4248, RFC 4266)

This reference is intentional.

No additonal reviews needed.


(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

References are properly split. There are no DownRefs.

There is one Normative reference to another draft
([I-D.ietf-vcarddav-vcardxml]), but both this draft and
[I-D.ietf-vcarddav-vcardxml] are going to be submitted to IESG for
review at the same time.


(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Yes. IANA Considerations section look to be complete and correct.


(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

ABNF was verified with BAP. Some errors were found and fixed.


(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

[redacted -- see ballot writeup]

###'

[Ballot comment]
(1) I'm surprised that there is no security considerations text about
the fact that you might run into trouble if you blindly follow URLs
that are embedded in vCards. There's probably easily copied text
somewhere on that.

(2) Similar point about embedded images and audio - again security
considerations about parsing/rendering these carefully would be
good.

(3) You can specify a key but no signature? That's a pity but
I guess would be another spec entirely. Just wondering if anyone's
developing that.

(4) This allows a whole bunch of things to be included (e.g.
PGP keys, URLs etc.) but there are no conformance requirements
for what has to be supported. I guess that's in some other
spec somewhere?

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are nine
IANA Actions that need to be completed.

First, in the Text Media Types registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/index.html

the subtype vcard will be registered with a reference of [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the Text Media Types registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/index.html

the entry for text/directory will be marked as deprecated in favor of
text/vcard.

Third, IANA notes the registration procedures and templates  for the
following vCard elements but will take no immediate action:

- properties
- parameters
- value data types
- values

Fourth, IANA will create a new registry for vCard elements and link that
new registry to the IANA Matrix of Registries at:

http://www.iana.org/protocols/

The reference for the Matrix entry will be [ RFC-to-be ].

Fifth, in the new registry created above a new "vCard Properties"
subregistry will be created.  Management and maintenance of this new
subregistry will be governed by the registration procedure noted in Task
3 above.  The initial registrations for this subregistry will be:

+-----------+--------------+------------------------------+
| Namespace | Property    | Reference                    |
+-----------+--------------+------------------------------+
|          | SOURCE      | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.1.3 |
|          | KIND        | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.1.4 |
|          | XML          | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.1.5 |
|          | FN          | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.2.1 |
|          | N            | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.2.2 |
|          | NICKNAME    | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.2.3 |
|          | PHOTO        | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.2.4 |
|          | BDAY        | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.2.5 |
|          | ANNIVERSARY  | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.2.6 |
|          | GENDER      | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.2.7 |
|          | ADR          | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.3.1 |
|          | TEL          | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.4.1 |
|          | EMAIL        | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.4.2 |
|          | IMPP        | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.4.3 |
|          | LANG        | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.4.4 |
|          | TZ          | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.5.1 |
|          | GEO          | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.5.2 |
|          | TITLE        | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.6.1 |
|          | ROLE        | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.6.2 |
|          | LOGO        | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.6.3 |
|          | ORG          | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.6.4 |
|          | MEMBER      | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.6.5 |
|          | RELATED      | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.6.6 |
|          | CATEGORIES  | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.7.1 |
|          | NOTE        | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.7.2 |
|          | PRODID      | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.7.3 |
|          | REV          | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.7.4 |
|          | SOUND        | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.7.5 |
|          | UID          | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.7.6 |
|          | CLIENTPIDMAP | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.7.7 |
|          | URL          | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.7.8 |
|          | VERSION      | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.7.9 |
|          | KEY          | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.8.1 |
|          | FBURL        | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.9.1 |
|          | CALADRURI    | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.9.2 |
|          | CALURI      | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.9.3 |
+-----------+--------------+------------------------------+

Sixth, in the new registry created in Task 4 above a new "vCard
Parameters" subregistry will be created.  Management and maintenance of
this new subregistry will be governed by the registration procedure
noted in Task 3 about.  The initial registrations for this sub registry
will be:

+-----------+-----------+-----------------------------+
| Namespace | Parameter | Reference                  |
+-----------+-----------+-----------------------------+
|          | LANGUAGE  | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.1  |
|          | VALUE    | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.2  |
|          | PREF      | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.3  |
|          | ALTID    | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.4  |
|          | PID      | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.5  |
|          | TYPE      | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.6  |
|          | MEDIATYPE | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.7  |
|          | CALSCALE  | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.8  |
|          | SORT-AS  | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.9  |
|          | GEO      | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.10 |
|          | TZ        | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.11 |
+-----------+-----------+-----------------------------+

Seventh, in the new registry created in Task 4 above a new "vCard Data
Types" subregistry will be created.  Management and maintenance of this
new subregistry will be governed by the registration procedure noted in
Task 3 about.  The initial registrations for this sub registry will be:

+------------------+------------------------------+
| Value Data Type  | Reference                    |
+------------------+------------------------------+
| BOOLEAN          | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 4.4  |
| DATE            | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 4.3.1 |
| TIME            | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 4.3.2 |
| DATE-TIME        | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 4.3.3 |
| DATE-AND-OR-TIME | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 4.3.4 |
| TIMESTAMP        | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 4.3.5 |
| FLOAT            | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 4.6  |
| INTEGER          | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 4.5  |
| TEXT            | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 4.1  |
| URI              | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 4.2  |
| LANGUAGE-TAG    | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 4.7  |
+------------------+------------------------------+

Eigth, in the new registry created in Task 4 above a new "vCard Property
Values" subregistry will be created.  Management and maintenance of this
new subregistry will be governed by the registration procedure noted in
Task 3 about.  The initial registrations for this sub registry will be:

+----------+------------+------------------------------+
| Property | Value      | Reference                    |
+----------+------------+------------------------------+
| BEGIN    | VCARD      | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.1.1 |
| END      | VCARD      | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.1.2 |
| KIND    | individual | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.1.4 |
| KIND    | group      | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.1.4 |
| KIND    | org        | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.1.4 |
| KIND    | location  | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.1.4 |
+----------+------------+------------------------------+

Ninth, in the new registry created in Task 4 above a new "vCard
Parameter Values" subregistry will be created.  Management and
maintenance of this new subregistry will be governed by the registration
procedure noted in Task 3 about.  The initial registrations for this sub
registry will be:

+------------------------+-----------+--------------+---------------------+
| Property              | Parameter | Value        | Reference          |
+------------------------+-----------+--------------+---------------------+
| FN, NICKNAME, PHOTO,  | TYPE      | work        | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
| ADR, TEL, EMAIL, IMPP, |          |              | Section 5.6        |
| LANG, TZ, GEO, TITLE,  |          |              |                    |
| ROLE, LOGO, ORG,      |          |              |                    |
| RELATED, CATEGORIES,  |          |              |                    |
| NOTE, SOUND, URL, KEY, |          |              |                    |
| FBURL, CALADRURI, and  |          |              |                    |
| CALURI                |          |              |                    |
| FN, NICKNAME, PHOTO,  | TYPE      | home        | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
| ADR, TEL, EMAIL, IMPP, |          |              | Section 5.6        |
| LANG, TZ, GEO, TITLE,  |          |              |                    |
| ROLE, LOGO, ORG,      |          |              |                    |
| RELATED, CATEGORIES,  |          |              |                    |
| NOTE, SOUND, URL, KEY, |          |              |                    |
| FBURL, CALADRURI, and  |          |              |                    |
| CALURI                |          |              |                    |
| TEL                    | TYPE      | text        | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.4.1      |
| TEL                    | TYPE      | voice        | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.4.1      |
| TEL                    | TYPE      | fax          | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.4.1      |
| TEL                    | TYPE      | cell        | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.4.1      |
| TEL                    | TYPE      | video        | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.4.1      |
| TEL                    | TYPE      | pager        | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.4.1      |
| BDAY, ANNIVERSARY      | CALSCALE  | gregorian    | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.2.5      |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | contact      | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | acquaintance | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | friend      | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | met          | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | co-worker    | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | colleague    | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | co-resident  | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | neighbor    | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | child        | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | parent      | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | sibling      | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | spouse      | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | kin          | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | muse        | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | crush        | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | date        | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | sweetheart  | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | me          | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
|                        |          |              | and [xfn]          |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | agent        | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
| RELATED                | TYPE      | emergency    | [ RFC-to-be ],      |
|                        |          |              | Section 6.6.6      |
+------------------------+-----------+--------------+---------------------+

IANA understands that these Actions are the only ones that need to be
completed upon approval of the document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (vCard Format Specification) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the vCard and CardDAV WG (vcarddav)
to consider the following document:
- 'vCard Format Specification'
  as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-04-20. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-vcarddav-vcardrev/