Skip to main content

Calendaring Extensions
charter-ietf-calext-02

Yes

(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Pete Resnick)

No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Ted Lemon)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-02 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"

Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -00-03) Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -00-02) Unknown

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -00-03) Unknown

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-08-19 for -00-02) Unknown
No objection, but...

> out of scope for the working group:
>
> - Any change that significantly impacts backwards compatibility with
> existing deployed iCalendar/iTIP/CalDAV clients and servers.

I wonder whether what you consider as significant is the same as what I would call significant.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-03) Unknown

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-02) Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-03) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-03) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-03) Unknown

                            
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-03) Unknown

                            
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-03) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-08-18 for -00-02) Unknown
This all looks fine. One question for my benefit.

"- Define a set of new iCalendar properties and parameters to standardise
some existing experimental X- properties in common use, based on a
survey of existing implementations."

I wasn't quite sure whether this meant standardizing an "X-Foo" experimental property, or standardizing a renamed "Foo:". It's unlikely that needs to be stated in a charter, either way, but just in case it does ... if the deliverable was "standardise some existing experimental properties", I wouldn't have thought to ask, but given the existence of http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648, I wondered.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-03) Unknown

                            
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00-03) Unknown