(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
A standards track RFC is being requested, specifically a Proposed
Standard. This document primarily registers new entities to registries
defined by other standards track documents.
(2) 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.
Technical Summary:
This document registers various extensions to the calendaring format
defined in RFC5545. The extensions have been used by various vendors in
an ad-hoc fashion and are now to be standardized using the registry
provisions in RFC5545.
Working Group Summary:
There were no major disagreements on the introduction of these new
extensions. For some of the extensions such as IMAGE and COLOR, there
was discussion on if the properties fit in well with the iCalendar data
model given they are presentation related properties, but keeping them
did not lead to objections in the end. Also, the introduction of other
extensions such as REFRESH-INTERVAL prompted discussion on if its use
promotes good practice, but it was concluded that the properties aptly
describe current practice and that advanced mechanisms such as push
notifications should be defined in other documents.
Document Quality:
The extensions defined have been in use by multiple major calendaring
vendors, or an intent to make use of the standardized extensions has
been expressed. In addition, the document has been reviewed by the
experts of the Calendaring and Scheduling Consortium prior to
publication as an IETF draft. Consensus has been reached among
calendaring experts that the document has no substantive issues.
Personnel:
The Document Shepard is Philipp Kewisch <mozilla@kewis.ch, the
Responsible Area Director is Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.
The Shepherd has reviewed the document for quality and for correctness
of the proposed IANA registry additions and changes. He believes it is
ready for publication by the IESG.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
The proposed extensions have been in discussion since 2010 so concerns
may come up that the proposed extensions may no longer be as relevant as
6 years ago, but after publication of draft 02 multiple parties have
confirmed they have no objection in moving forward.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.
No special review is required from the Shepherds standpoint.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has 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.
The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with the document.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
The author, Cyrus Daboo, has confirmed that all appropriate IPR
disclosures have already been filed.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/calsify/current/msg02737.html
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been filed referencing this document.
(9) 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?
Agreement has been reached among various experts from within the WG.
(10) 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 publicly available.)
No extreme discontent has been indicated.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.
No ID nits have been identified and the ID checklist has not brought up
any issues.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
No such formal review is required.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
ll references have been identified as either normative or informative.
(14) 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 plan for their completion?
All normative references point towards completed RFC or W3C documents.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.
There are no downward normative references.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
No change is made to the status of existing documents.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
The IANA considerations section has been reviewed by the Shepherd.
The display type registry defined in section 8.3 and the feature types
registry defined in section 8.4. make the impression that a new IANA
registry is being created, although they reference an existing
registration template defined in RFC5545 section 8.2.6.
It is recommended to reword the introduction for these sections to
clarify the intent.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
It is unclear if new sub-registries are being created, or if extensions
are being made to an existing registry. Please see (17) for details.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
ABNF has been checked using the ABNF parser from tools.ietf.org,
properties and parameters registered with rfc5545 have been manually
checked by the Document Shepherd.