JSCalendar: A JSON Representation of Calendar Data
draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-32
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2021-07-14
|
32 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2021-06-09
|
32 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from IESG |
2021-06-01
|
32 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2021-05-28
|
32 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2021-05-28
|
32 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-32. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-32. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that the actions in the IANA considerations section of this document have been completed. First, in the application namespace on the Media Types registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/ we've added the following entry: Name: jscalendar+json Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, a new registry is to be created called the JSCalendar Properties registry. An initial version of the registry was created in advance of approval of this draft on the JSCalendar registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/jscalendar/ The registration procedure for the new registry is Expert Review as defined in RFC 8126. Upon approval of this draft, the reference for the registry and for all initial items in the registry will be changed from: [RFC-ietf-calext-jscalendar-32] to: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA has compared Section 8.2.6 of the current draft with the existing registrations on the JSCalendar registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/jscalendar/ and found that there are no changes to be made to the existing registrations other than the revisions to the references. Third, a new registry is to be created called the JSCalendar Types registry. An initial version of the registry was created in advance of approval of this draft on the JSCalendar registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/jscalendar/ The registration procedure for the new registry is Expert Review as defined in RFC 8126. Upon approval of this draft, the reference for the registry and for all initial items in the registry will be changed from: [RFC-ietf-calext-jscalendar-32] to: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA has compared Section 8.3.2 of the current draft with the existing registrations on the JSCalendar registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/jscalendar/ and found that there are no changes to be made to the existing registrations other than the revisions to the references. Fourth, a set of related new registries are to be created on the JSCalendar registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/jscalendar/ The set of related new registries are: JSCalendar Enum Values JSCalendar Enum Values for action (Context: Alert) JSCalendar Enum Values for display (Context: Link) JSCalendar Enum Values for freeBusyStatus (Context: JSEvent, JSTask) JSCalendar Enum Values for kind (Context: Participant) JSCalendar Enum Values for participationStatus (Context: Participant) JSCalendar Enum Values for privacy (Context: JSEvent, JSTask) JSCalendar Enum Values for progress (Context: JSTask, Participant) JSCalendar Enum Values for relation (Context: Relation) JSCalendar Enum Values for relativeTo (Context: OffsetTrigger, Location) JSCalendar Enum Values for roles (Context: Participant) JSCalendar Enum Values for scheduleAgent (Context: Participant) JSCalendar Enum Values for status (Context: JSEvent) Each of these new registries is to be managed via Expert Review as defined in RFC 8126. An initial version of each of these registries was created in advance of approval of this draft on the JSCalendar registry page. Upon approval of this draft, the references for each of these registries and for all initial items in each of the registries will be changed from: [RFC-ietf-calext-jscalendar-32] to: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA has compared Section 8.4.3 of the current draft with the existing registrations on the JSCalendar registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/jscalendar/ and found that there are no changes to be made to the existing registrations other than the revisions to the references. The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2021-05-18
|
32 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to IESG from AUTH48 |
2021-05-18
|
32 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-06-01): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Daniel Migault , calext-chairs@ietf.org, calsify@ietf.org, daniel.migaultf@ericsson.com, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2021-06-01): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Daniel Migault , calext-chairs@ietf.org, calsify@ietf.org, daniel.migaultf@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar@ietf.org, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: SECOND Last Call: (JSCalendar: A JSON representation of calendar data) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Calendaring Extensions WG (calext) to consider the following document: - 'JSCalendar: A JSON representation of calendar data' as 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 last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2021-06-01. 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. This second last call is specifically on the following diff: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8984-ad2-diff.html And on the following technical additions to the document: * "features" in section 4.2.6 * "recurrenceIdTimeZone" in section 4.3.2 * "sentBy" in section 4.4.5. and 4.4.6 * "requestStatus" in 4.4.7 * as a consequence, updates to the IANA registries in 8.2.6 and 8.4.3. The document was with the RFC Editor since November 2020. However, last minute implementation attempts found some edge cases of incompatibility between jscalendar and icalendar data models, which resulted in wg discussion and the changes above. The additions were discussed extensively at IETF 110 and confirmed during a following interim. Abstract This specification defines a data model and JSON representation of calendar data that can be used for storage and data exchange in a calendaring and scheduling environment. It aims to be an alternative and, over time, successor to the widely deployed iCalendar data format, and to be unambiguous, extendable, and simple to process. In contrast to the jCal format, which is also JSON-based, JSCalendar is not a direct mapping from iCalendar, but defines the data model independently and expands semantics where appropriate. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2021-05-18
|
32 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2021-05-18
|
32 | Francesca Palombini | Last call announcement was changed |
2021-05-18
|
32 | Amy Vezza | Last call was requested |
2021-05-18
|
32 | (System) | Changed action holders to Francesca Palombini (IESG state changed) |
2021-05-18
|
32 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from RFC Ed Queue |
2021-05-18
|
32 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2021-05-18
|
32 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was generated |
2021-05-18
|
32 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Francesca Palombini |
2021-05-12
|
32 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was generated |
2021-04-14
|
32 | Bron Gondwana | Added to session: interim-2021-calext-01 |
2021-04-14
|
32 | Bron Gondwana | Added to session: interim-2021-jmap-01 |
2021-03-01
|
32 | Bron Gondwana | Added to session: IETF-110: calext Wed-1530 |
2021-02-12
|
32 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2021-01-19
|
32 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2020-12-01
|
32 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2020-12-01
|
32 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2020-12-01
|
32 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2020-11-25
|
32 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2020-11-19
|
32 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2020-11-19
|
32 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2020-11-19
|
32 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2020-11-19
|
32 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2020-11-19
|
32 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2020-11-19
|
32 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2020-11-19
|
32 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2020-11-19
|
32 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-11-19
|
32 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-10-16
|
32 | Phillip Hallam-Baker | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Phillip Hallam-Baker. Sent review to list. |
2020-10-15
|
32 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-32.txt |
2020-10-15
|
32 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-10-15
|
32 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Neil Jenkins , Robert Stepanek |
2020-10-15
|
32 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-10-13
|
31 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Section 1.4.8 Where "TimeZoneId" is given as a data type, it means a "String" that is either a time zone name … [Ballot comment] Section 1.4.8 Where "TimeZoneId" is given as a data type, it means a "String" that is either a time zone name in the IANA Time Zone Database [TZDB] or a custom time zone identifier in the "timeZones" property (see Section 4.7.2). (nit?) I'd suggest 'custom time zone identifier defined in the "timeZones" property'. Section 4.7.1 floating time. This is either a name from the IANA Time Zone Database [TZDB] or the id of a custom time zone from the "timeZones" property (Section 4.7.2). If omitted, this MUST be presumed to be I think we probably want to say "the TimeZoneID of a custom time zone" here since there seems to only be a colloquial tie between "id" and that type. Section 4.7.2 Maps the TZNAME properties from iCalendar to a JSON set. The set is represented as an object, with the keys being the names (excluding any "tznparam" component from iCalendar). The value for each key in the map MUST be true. I suggest moving the parenthetical to being offset by a comma -- it's a normative requirement, not an aside. Section 6.8 It looks like the change in location Id for the virtualLocation entry was unintentional, since the localizations property contains a patch object that still references the old Id. (This would qualify as a Discuss-level internal inconsistency but I am confident that the right thing will happen.) Section 7 behavior within a known time window. It's transmission and storage nit: s/It's/Its/ |
2020-10-13
|
31 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2020-09-30
|
31 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you for responding to the SECDIR review (and thank you to Phillip Hallam-Baker for doing it). Thank you for resolving my COMMENTs. |
2020-09-30
|
31 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot comment text updated for Roman Danyliw |
2020-09-29
|
31 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-09-29
|
31 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2020-09-29
|
31 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-31.txt |
2020-09-29
|
31 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-09-29
|
31 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Neil Jenkins , Robert Stepanek |
2020-09-29
|
31 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-09-24
|
30 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2020-09-24
|
30 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2020-09-24
|
30 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2020-09-24
|
30 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2020-09-24
|
30 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot comment] I'm late on my reviews this week, and my colleagues have been mighty thorough, so I'll be blissfully brief. To assuage some of … [Ballot comment] I'm late on my reviews this week, and my colleagues have been mighty thorough, so I'll be blissfully brief. To assuage some of the IESG's concerns about iCalendar and jCal, could we maybe include one of those Implementation Status sections? Nice job on the IANA section here. [For the IESG] How common is it to have a working group be the point of contact for a new registry? What do we normally do if such a working group were to close? I scanned RFC 8126 (rather quickly, I admit) and didn't see any guidance in there about this. In Section 4.1.4, there's "SHOULD ensure that this is a globally unique identifier". Why might an implementation choose not to do so (which SHOULD allows)? All of the SHOULDs in 4.5.2 have me asking the same sort of thing: When would one not do this? One way out here is to just drop the SHOULDs and say something like: CURRENT: The Relation object SHOULD set the "parent" relation type. NEW: The Relation object sets the "parent" relation type. |
2020-09-24
|
30 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2020-09-23
|
30 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2020-09-23
|
30 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2020-09-23
|
30 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Thank you for writing this document -- as someone who has written (horrible!) code to try and generate and parse iCalendar data, this … [Ballot comment] Thank you for writing this document -- as someone who has written (horrible!) code to try and generate and parse iCalendar data, this seem like a very useful effort. Like Eric I'm concerned about the https://xkcd.com/927/ effect, but I also feel that this standard might be more usable than the existing one(s). I suspect that it is much too early to think about Obsoleting jCal (although I must admit I've never run into jCal, so I have no idea if it is actually being used). I think that it would be useful to have some more discussions around why / when PatchObjects should be used - they seem to add significant complexity to the design, and I'm really not convinced that the complexity outweighs the benefit; I'm guessing that I'm simply not fully understanding their utility. More examples would probably help... Thanks again! W |
2020-09-23
|
30 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2020-09-23
|
30 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot comment] Hi, Thank you for this document. I appreciate the effort to fix iCalendar and jCal, but also support Ben's questions regarding how this … [Ballot comment] Hi, Thank you for this document. I appreciate the effort to fix iCalendar and jCal, but also support Ben's questions regarding how this document relates to the iCalendar and jCal documents. It seems that at least obsoleting jCal might be a good idea. Ben's detailed review also seemed to throw up quite a lot of comments/clarifications, hence I have a slight concern about how robust the jsCalendar specification is. The shepherd write up also doesn't seem to note what level of review has been received on this document. The document states that it aims to fix the bugs in iCalendar because they cannot be fixed without breaking existing implementations. I trust that the authors and WG are confident that history is not about to repeat itself ... Regards, Rob |
2020-09-23
|
30 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2020-09-22
|
30 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2020-09-22
|
30 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot discuss] Thanks for this document; it's generally in good shape even though I do want to discuss a few specific points. (1) I'm a … [Ballot discuss] Thanks for this document; it's generally in good shape even though I do want to discuss a few specific points. (1) I'm a bit confused by the indication that we can use linkIds to link to a vCard representation of a participant or location -- if I understand correctly that representation would occupy the "description" property of the linked object, but the "description" is (at least for locations) supposed to be "human-readable", which is perhaps only debatably an apt description of a vCard object. (2) Given the language in Section 1.4.7 about needing to denote on a per-object basis when Ids have semantic meaning outside of the object in which they are defined, I think we need a stronger/clearer statement in Section 4.2.5 that the location Ids have global semantics within a calendar, Section 4.4.5 that participant Ids have global semantics, within a calendar, etc. (My preference would be to reverse the sense of the language in §1.4.7 rather than add language to each instance of Ids with global semantics; see COMMENT.) (3) We may want to discuss the scheduleSequence semantics/usability in the face of a user/"participant" that has multiple clients. It seems to me that there is not much preventing the different clients from sending (different) responses that use the same sequence number, and I'm also not sure whether the client is supposed to keep local state on what sequence number to use next or just to increment any value received from the server. (4) I strongly recommend that all the examples not reuse UUIDs for different things (e.g., I see "2a358cee-6489-4f14-a57f-c104db4dc2f1" as all of: simple event, location (FRA Airport), location (Math lab room 1), location (Big Auditorium), and virtualLocation (ChatMe). The Section 6.9 example at least rises to Discuss-level (IIUC) as inconsistent with the protocol requirements, since the location id is used for two different locations in sibling events. (5) Additionally, the Section 6.3 example seems malformed, since the "entries" array contains as its second element a key/value pair, not a (jstask) object. (Erik noted this as a Comment-level point, it seems, so this is more a note to myself to confirm that it's fixed than informing you of the issue.) (6) Can we briefly discuss the use of the "/" character in time zone identifiers in §4.7.2? Specifically, this text: o It MUST start with the "/" character (ASCII decimal 47; also see Sections 3.2.19 of [RFC5545] and 3.6. of [RFC7808] for discussion of the forward slash character in time zone identifiers). (a) I see no discussion of the forward slash character in section 3.6 of RFC 7808. (b) Also, Section 3.2.19 of RFC 5545 seems to basically be saying "there might one day be one (or more!) global registry for time zones, but we don't know of one and can't point you to it" ... is this really the semantics we want to continue to enshrine? |
2020-09-22
|
30 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] If this is "successor to iCalendar", is an Obsoletes: relationship appropriate? What is the status of jCal (RFC 7265) now that … [Ballot comment] If this is "successor to iCalendar", is an Obsoletes: relationship appropriate? What is the status of jCal (RFC 7265) now that this work is published? Should jCal be moved to Historic? There's a lot of stuff in the section-by-section comments (including many nits, which hopefully are not too distracting from the substantive ones); I do want to specifically call out my notes on the media-type registration's interoperability considerations as noteworthy. I'd also request some extra attention be paid to the examples; I have a few comments (as well as the discuss point) but am not exactly a JSON expert and there may be other potential issues lurking. It is perhaps unfortunate that no internationalization directorate review was requested. Section 1 o The data model should be compatible with the iCalendar data format [RFC5545] [RFC7986] and extensions, but the specification should add new attributes where the iCalendar format currently lacks expressivity, and drop seldom-used, obsolete, or redundant Should this perhaps be downgraded to "generally compatible", since we go on to discuss specific areas of incompatibility? Section 1.3 If we're going to use JMAP as justification for (e.g.) the "A[B]" notation, should we mention our underlying inspiration as stemming from JMAP, somewhere? (I have similar sentiments to the gen-art reviewer, and apparently did not pay close enough attention to the change when it happened in JMAP, which was possibly introduced as a result of my comments on draft-ietf-jmap-core-14...) Section 1.4.3 This is a string in [RFC3339] "date-time" format, with the further restrictions that any letters MUST be in uppercase, the time Just to check: this means that in general we expect implementations to reject as malformed strings that use lowercase 't' or 'z'? component MUST be included and the time offset MUST be the character "Z". [...] (nit) AFAICT including the time component is already required just by using the "date-time" construction, since the "full-time" part is not optional. Section 1.4.4 A time zone may have a period of discontinuity, for example a change from standard time to daylight-savings time. When converting local date-times that fall in the discontinuity to UTC, the offset before the transition is used. Does this mean that there are certain instants in time that are un-representable in this format in that timezone? (Presumably UTC could still be used to represent that absolute time if needed, though that seems slightly at odds with the general goal of being able to use local time for local events.) Section 1.4.5 If we are not going to require that (e.g.) the specified seconds value is not more than 60, we may want to put in some security considerations about handling such nominally out-of-range values. duration = "P" (dur-cal [dur-time] / dur-cal / dur-time) The middle "dur-cal" seems redundant to me. 1. Add any week or day components of the duration to the date. A week is always 7 days, even if a day is not always 24 hours, right? Section 1.4.7 Unless otherwise specified, Ids are arbitrary and only have meaning within the object where they are being used. Ids need not be unique Letting the Id be non-unique across objects seems to be a substantial divergence from JMAP and the discussion in the document doesn't help me understand the motivation for that divergence. (If we said something along the lines of "JSCalendar's uid is more analogous to the JMAP Id than the JSCalendar Id is", that would have helped.) What goes wrong if we try to use the RFC 8620 semantics ("[t]he id of a record is immutable and assigned by the server. The id MUST be unique among all records of the *same type* within the *same account*")? Or is "the object where they are being used" intended to refer to the type of the object and not the specific object itself? (The guidance from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8620#section-1.2 on defensive allocation strategies might be apropos as well.) I would also appreciate some indication of whether the Id is always server-assigned, in this section. Personally, I would rewrite this whole paragraph along the lines of: % In many places in JSCalendar a JSON map is used where the map keys are % of type Id and the map values are all the same type of object. This % construction has similar semantics to a list of objects, with the % advantage that it allows for the set of objects in question to be % named (by the corresponding map key); this, in turn, allows for more % concise patch objects and, when applicable, for the objects in % question to be referenced from other calendar objects. In some cases % there is no need for references from external objects, so the Ids in % question only have defined semantics within the specific object in % which they appear; these cases are noted when they occur. In all % cases, however, Ids are server-assigned and immutable. but I recognize that sometimes my editorial ideas are strange, and you are free to ignore my suggestion entirely -- I won't mind. Section 1.4.8 The first three items in this list seem semantically equivalent to those in RFC 8620 for the JMAP PatchObject; would it make sense to reuse the text verbatim? (Similarly for the "value associated with each pointer" text.) A PatchObject does not define its own "@type" property. A "@type" property in a patch MUST be handled as any other patched property value. A forward reference for "@type" might be in order (at least, in the absence of a reference to JMAP as inspiration in the introductory material). Section 1.4.9 By default, time zones in JSCalendar are identified by their names in the IANA Time Zone Database [TZDB], and the zone rules of the respective zone records apply. Implementations MAY embed the definitions of custom time zones in the "timeZones" property (see Section 4.7.2). The wording about "by default" leaves me wondering if the custom time zones are allowed to override IANA TZDB time zones. Section 1.4.10 Keys in the set MUST be one of the following values, or specified in the property definition where the Relation object is used, or a value registered in the IANA JSCalendar Enum Registry, or a vendor-specific value: (side note) I'd consider reiterating that "vendor-specific values" require the domain-name-plus-colon prefix, to clarify that there is an actual restriction in the "MUST". (Similar language appears elsewhere in the document, too.) Also, in other places where we have a similar requirement (e.g., §4.2.5) we specify the handling for an unrecognized value, which might be worth doing here as well. The value for each key in the set MUST be true. We have similar language in §4.2.5 describing locationTypes, where we refer to it as a "map" rather than a "set"; it might be good to use consistent terminology. Section 3 A JSCalendar object is a JSON object, which MUST be valid I-JSON (a stricter subset of JSON), as specified in [RFC8259]. Property names and values are case-sensitive. (editorial) The location of "as specified in" binds to I-JSON but the reference is just for JSON. Section 3.2 Considering this, the definition of equivalence and normalization is left to client and server implementations and to be negotiated by a calendar exchange protocol or defined elsewhere. Did we consider providing well-written specifications for a few "common options" that a consuming protocol could select from by reference, saving applications from needing to duplicate work in each application? Section 4.1.4 Perhaps it's obvious, but it seems like we're relying on the client to supply an honest value for the product ID, and the server has no way of verifying or validating that submission. The vendor of the implementation SHOULD ensure that this is a globally unique identifier, using some technique such as an FPI value, as defined in [ISO.9070.1991]. It MUST only use characters of an iCalendar TEXT data value (see Section 3.3.11 of [RFC5545]). [Hmm, normatively referencing iCalendar for allowed characters makes it hard to obsolete iCalendar as well...inlining the definition in this document would make it more of a "standalone" document, if that's desired.] For example, it is not to be used to further the understanding of non-standard properties, a practice that is knows to cause long-term interoperability problems. nit: s/knows/known/ Section 4.1.5 I think someone else asked about whether a patch that only updates "updated" without setting "created" is to be considered invalid; it might be worth reiterating that here. Section 4.2.5 A map of location ids to Location objects, representing locations associated with the object. A brief survey of similar usage in this document suggests that we generally prefer "[map|set] of ids to objects", but there's at least one case where we just talk about "map of ids to objects"; it would be good to make a pass to ensure consistency. Section 4.2.6 This may be a telephone number (represented using the "tel:" scheme, e.g., "tel:+1-555-555-555") for a teleconference, a web address for online chat, or any custom URI. nit: one more '5' for a valid country-code 1 phone number. Section 4.2.10 I don't think I understand why the "http" scheme is used in the example categories; these feel in some sense more like URI than URL specifically. Section 4.3.2 A JSTask recurs by applying the recurrence rules to the "start" date- time, if defined, otherwise it recurs by the "due" date-time, if defined. If the task defines neither a "start" nor "due" date-time, it MUST NOT define a "recurrenceRules" property. I think that Phill's secdir review comment about addressing time zones and daylight savings could be addressed by calling out more explicitly here that the "start"/"due" times here have an associated time zone, and that when converting the recurring events into other time zones the time zone transitions in both the "to" and "from" time zones (if any) need to be taken into account. The calendar system in which this recurrence rule operates, in lowercase. This MUST be either a CLDR-registered calendar system name [CLDR], or a vendor-specific value. I trust that CLDR guarantees that calendar-system names will not be registered that differ only in case. o bySetPosition: "Int[]" (optional) The occurrences within the recurrence interval to include in the final results. Negative values offset from the end of the list of occurrences. The array MUST have at least one entry if included. This is the BYSETPOS part from iCalendar. (side note) huh, a literal reading of the RFC 5545 ABNF seems to limit the potential indices here to (+/-) 1 to 366, which seems inadvertent. I'm glad to see that we don't repeat that here! Section 4.3.2.1 2. Each date-time candidate is compared against all of the byX properties of the rule except bySetPosition. If any property in the rule does not match the date-time, it is eliminated. Each nit: I'd suggest clarifyint that the "it" that is eliminated is the date-time, not the property in the rule. 3. If any valid date produced after applying the skip is already a candidate, eliminate the duplicate. (For example after adjusting, 30th February and 31st February would both become the same "real" date, so one is eliminated as a duplicate.) (nit) I can't decide if this should be "one" or "at least one". I guess this could have some interaction with step (5) below ("eliminate any date-times that have already been produced by previous iterations of the algorithm"). Section 4.3.4 If the patch object defines the "excluded" property value to be true, then the recurring calendar object does not occur at the recurrence id date-time (like an EXDATE from iCalendar). Such a patch object MUST NOT patch any other property. I'd consider specifying which object the "excluded" property value would be defined in, as opposed to the current state which is a little vague (it could be anywhere). A pointer in the PatchObject MUST be ignored if it starts with one of the following prefixes: [...] I'm not sure I understand why prodId is included in this list. It seems to preclude indicating that a different product was used to put in an override than was used to create the initial recurrence. Also, just to check: it's intentional to allow for "excludedRecurrenceRules" and "excluded" to be patch-able? If there is a vendor-specific or future-defined property that should get similar treatment, how would that fact be communicated to implementors? Section 4.3.5 Defines if this object is an overridden, excluded instance of a recurring JSCalendar object (see Section 4.3.4). If this property value is true, this calendar object instance MUST be removed from the occurrence expansion. The absence of this property or its default value false indicates that this instance MUST be included in the occurrence expansion. nit: I think commas around and an added word for "or the presence of its default value false" are in order, as the current text seems to parse to "the absence of its default value false". Section 4.4.3 This property MUST NOT affect the information sent to scheduled participants; it is only interpreted when the object is shared as part of a shared calendar. (Where is "shared calendar" defined?) o "private": The details of the object are hidden; only the basic time and metadata is shared. The following properties MAY be shared, any other properties MUST NOT be shared: I guess the idea is that if we want to add/remove things from this list we'll just register a new enum value? Section 4.4.4 Represents methods by which participants may submit their RSVP response to the organizer of the calendar object. The keys in the Given that we don't seem to define a direct analogue for the iCalendar RSVP parameter (at least, not that mentions that name), it seems that we are falling back on the "native english" (er, French?) meaning of the term, in which case it's perhaps debatable about whether "RSVP response" adds anything over just "response". o "web": Opening this URI in a web browser will provide the user with a page where they can submit a reply to the organizer. Are we in a position where we could mandate the "https" scheme here? Section 4.4.5 What kind of internal consistency checks do we expect implementations to do with respect to (e.g.) delegatedTo/delegatedFrom, memberOf/kind(group), etc.? What should one do if an inconsistency is found? Why do we need both scheduleSequence and scheduleUpdated? o language: "String" (optional) The language tag as defined in [RFC5646] that best describes the participant's preferred language, if known. nit: RFC 5646 is BCP 47, and referencing the BCP form is probably preferred for future compatibility. (I can't tell on a quick inspection if the RFC is in fact the preferred reference over an IANA registry, but trust that you have it right.) This can be used to determine whether the participant has sent a new RSVP following significant changes to the calendar object, and to determine if future responses are responding to a current or older view of the data. [Another case where "RSVP" might be out of place.] o scheduleStatus: "String[]" (optional) A list of status codes, as defined in Section 3.8.8.3 of [RFC5545], returned from the processing of the most recent scheduling message sent to this participant. [Just noting another place with hard 5545 dependency.] Servers MUST only add or change this property when they send a scheduling message to the participant. Clients SHOULD NOT change Send, but not receive? Section 4.5.2 * offset: "SignedDuration" (mandatory). Defines the offset at which to trigger the alert relative to the time property defined in the "relativeTo" property of the alert. Negative durations signify alerts before the time property, positive durations signify alerts after. Thank you for specifying this explicitly! An "AbsoluteTrigger" object has the following properties: [...] * when: "UTCDateTime" (mandatory). Why can absolute triggers not be in local time even when event start/end times can be in local time? (Can alerts be part of recurrence rules?) For a recurring calendar object, the "acknowledged" property of the parent object MUST be updated, unless the alert is already overridden in the "recurrenceOverrides" property. I'm not 100% sure I understand what the parent/child relationship being referred to is, here. My current guess is that there's a main "recurrence rule" object that's treated as the parent for a given object (in this case, alert) instance, but that may change as I keep reading... Also, does this *only* apply to recurring objects, or to any object with a parent? Section 4.6.1 Are there ever cases where the burden of carrying around a lot of localizations in-band with the calendar/objects becomes burdonsome, and it would be convenient to make localizations remote resources thare are only retrieved on clients that need them? (E.g., if a given object is localized into many different locales.) object is set to the language tag. All pointers for patches MUST end with one of the following suffixes; any patch that does not follow this MUST be ignored unless otherwise specified in a future RFC: Any RFC at all (including Independent Stream), or specifically an RFC that updates this one? Section 4.7.2 o It MUST be a valid "paramtext" value as specified in Section 3.1. of [RFC5545]. [another 5545 dependency] o At least one other property in the same JSCalendar object MUST reference a time zone using this identifier (i.e., orphaned time zones are not allowed). Will maintaining this invariant become burdensome if a calendar needs to be "subsetted" (e.g., when redistributing "private" events)? A TimeZone object maps a VTIMEZONE component from iCalendar [RFC5545] and the semantics are as defined there. A valid time zone MUST [more 5545 dependence] o validUntil: "UTCDateTime" (optional) The TZUNTIL property from iCalendar specified in [RFC7808]. [technically not 5545, but in the same category] o aliases: "String[Boolean]" (optional) Maps the TZID-ALIAS-OF properties from iCalendar specified in [RFC7808] to a JSON set of aliases. The set is represented as an object, with the keys being the aliases. The value for each key in the set MUST be true. Is the "alias" property (er, in the natural-language sense of "property") intended to be transitive, or is there a single primary timezone that others are aliases of? (In either case we may want some more specifics, including error handling.) o offsetTo: "String" (mandatory) [...] o offsetFrom: "String" (mandatory) nit: these are not sorted alphabetically (and are in the opposite order as RFC 5545); is there a reason not to swap them? o recurrenceOverrides: "LocalDateTime[PatchObject]" (optional) Maps the RDATE properties from iCalendar. The set is represented as an object, with the keys being the recurrence dates. The patch object MUST be empty. I suggest "MUST be the empty JSON object ({})" to distinguish from JSON null (my initial interpretation), which would not have the desired semantics. o names: "String[Boolean]" (optional) Maps the TZNAME properties from iCalendar to a JSON set. The set is represented as an object, with the keys being the names. The value for each key in the set MUST be true. I wish there was a more precise definition of "TZNAME properties" available. Are these supposed to be the "tznparam" or "text" (or both!) portions of the RFC 5545 "tzname" construction? Section 5.1.2 Should we say something about the conceptual "end" of the JSEvent being at "start" + "duration", or is that too banal? (We do reference the "end" in a couple other places.) Section 5.3 JSGroup supports the following common JSCalendar properties (Section 4): nit: any chance we could get this list sorted in the order the properties appear in Section 4? Section 6.1 (I assume that the January 2018 timestamps reflect approximately when the example was first written. It doesn't seem as interesting to have the examples be "current" to time of publishing as it sometimes does for other documents that go by.) It is perhaps surprising to have "updated" and "start" be the same time, though? Section 6.10 "uri": "https://chatme.example.com?id=1234567" (My sense is that best practices for meeting URLs like this is to include some amount of randomness in the URL to make it unpredictable. See also https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/capability-urls/ and draft-gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations.) "replyTo": { "imip": "mailto:6489-4f14-a57f-c1@schedule.example.com" }, The local component of the email address is a substring of the UUID that is this meeting's location id (which itself is reused in several other places in this document, as previously noted), which is not necessarily problematic but is perhaps unusual. I'm more concerned that this is also the imip "sendTo" for Tom Tool, who is not an owner/chair/etc. of the meeting, just a regular attendee. While not forbidden by the spec, this seems like a highly non-representative example. I'd suggest making Tom's "sendTo" be just "tom@foobar.example.com" to match Zoe's. "...": "" Is this empty string actually valid as a participant object? Section 7 I note that there is not much discussion of internationalization considerations, and arguably there should be. This is specifically relevant for security when it comes to "confusables" in Unicode, though perhaps the scope for attacks is limited in terms of which JSCalendar elements are presented to the user. Such systems must be careful to authenticate all data they receive to prevent them from being subverted. Authorization checks may also be appropriate in these scenarios, separately from authentication. Section 7.3 Several JSCalendar properties contain URIs as values, and processing these properties requires extra care. Section 7 of [RFC3986] discusses security risks related to URIs. It's generally my preference to specifically call out that there are inherent considerations with fetching remote resources referenced by URIs, in addition to referencing RFC 3986's security considerations as you already do. Section 7.4 book contact). Misclassifications are always possible however, and providing a feedback mechanism for users to quickly correct this is advised. Based on real-world experience, I think it's important for the feedback mechanism to not require sending any traffic to the originator of the (spam) calendar event/object). Also, nit: comma before "however" (as well as after). Section 7.5 when updating it to avoid unexpected duplication of events. When the UID changes, consumers of the data may not remove the previous version of the event if it has a different UID. This can lead to a nit: "when the UID changes" seems redundant with "if it has a different UID". Section 8 [Just noting that I did not do a particularly thorough cross-referencing of the various initial registry contents against the document body and within the related registries.] Section 8.1 Interoperability considerations: This media type provides an alternative to iCalendar, jCal and proprietary JSON-based calendaring data formats. This feels like a general statement about the calendaring ecosystem and not considerations for interoperability specifically within JSCalendar. I would have expected things more along the lines of "different applications may use different criteria for determining equivalence of objects" or "while JSCalendar is designed to avoid ambiguities as much as possible, when converting objects from other calendar formats to/from JSCalendar it is possible that differing representations for the same logical data might arise, or ambiguities in interpretation". Fragment identifier considerations: N/A I trust it is an explicit decision by the WG to not specify a fragment identifier structure (e.g., JSON pointer). Section 8.2 delay. It is designed to encourage vendors to document and register new properties they add for use cases not covered by the original standard, leading to increased interoperability. nit: maybe s/standard/specification/? Section 8.2.5 o Property Name: The name of the property. The property name MUST NOT already be registered for any of the object types listed in the "Property Context" field of this registration. Other object types MAY already have registered a different property with the same name. Is this MAY too strong? It seems like it would invite confusion if the same name was used with different semantics in different contexts (so guidance that this is only expected when the semantics are anlogous might be appropriate). Section 10.2 Perhaps "[MIME]" is no longer the best reference tag for the media-types registry (which is now uncoupled from MIME)? Since the RFC 4122 UUID construction is RECOMMENDED, that probably makes it normative. RFC 5546 needs to be normative since we defer to it for iTIP METHODs. Likewise RFC 6047 for iMIP, RFC 7529 for several things, and RFC 7808 for several things. |
2020-09-22
|
30 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2020-09-22
|
30 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you for responding to the SECDIR review (and thank you to Phillip Hallam-Baker for doing it). ** Section 1. The data model … [Ballot comment] Thank you for responding to the SECDIR review (and thank you to Phillip Hallam-Baker for doing it). ** Section 1. The data model should be compatible with the iCalendar data format [RFC5545] [RFC7986] and extensions, but the specification should add new attributes where the iCalendar format currently lacks expressivity, and drop seldom-used, obsolete, or redundant properties. This means translation with no loss of semantics should be easy with most common iCalendar files. Some of these goals seem to conflict. If JSCalender drops support for things in the iCalender format how can it be compatible? Is it possible to easily enumerate what JSCalender no longer supports that iCalendar did? ** Section 1.4.4. What is the “associated property” from which the time zone should come? ** Section 1.4.4. Per “When converting local date-times that fall in the discontinuity to UTC, the offset before the transition is used”, would normative language be appropriate here – “… the offset before the transition MUST be used.”? ** Section 4.1.2. Shouldn’t “uid” be of type “Id” (per Section 1.4.7)? ** Section 4.2.5. timeZone. Is there a reason this isn't otype “Time Zones” instead of “String”? ** Section 4.2.6. uri. Provide a reference for “URI” (RFC3986) ** Section 4.4.4. Does “web” method imply that only http and https URIs are acceptable as a value? ** Section 7. s/man-in-the-middle/on-path/ ** Section 7. I recommend further emphasizing the sensitive nature of this data OLD Calendaring and scheduling information is very privacy-sensitive. Its transmission must be done carefully to protect it from possible … NEW Calendaring and scheduling information is very privacy-sensitive. It can reveal the social network of a user; location information of this user and those in their social network; identity and credentials information; and the patterns of behavior of the user in both the physical and cyber realm. Additionally, calendar events and tasks can could influence the physical location of a user or their cyber behavior within a known time window. It’s transmission and storage must be done carefully to protect it from possible … ** Editorial Nits -- Section 1.4.3. Editorial. Colloquial language. s/is OK/is conformant/ -- Section 1.4.4. Editorial. s/see duration semantics below/see duration semantics in Section 1.4.5/ -- Section 1.4.7. Editorial. Per “… a UUID is typically a good choice”, I’m not sure this is needed given the more detailed text in Section 4.1.2 -- Section 4.1.4. Typo. s/knows/known/ -- Section 4.3. s/compelete/complete/ -- Section 4.4.5. Typo. s/themself/themselves/ -- Section 6. Editorial. Replace any dates in 2018 to be 2020 in the examples (to make the examples be closer to the publish date of this draft). |
2020-09-22
|
30 | Roman Danyliw | Ballot comment text updated for Roman Danyliw |
2020-09-22
|
30 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] Thank you for responding to the SECDIR review (and thank you to Phillip Hallam-Baker for doing it). ** Section 1. The data model … [Ballot comment] Thank you for responding to the SECDIR review (and thank you to Phillip Hallam-Baker for doing it). ** Section 1. The data model should be compatible with the iCalendar data format [RFC5545] [RFC7986] and extensions, but the specification should add new attributes where the iCalendar format currently lacks expressivity, and drop seldom-used, obsolete, or redundant properties. This means translation with no loss of semantics should be easy with most common iCalendar files. Some of these goals seem to conflict. If JSCalender drops support for things in the iCalender format how can it be compatible? Is it possible to easily enumerate what JSCalender no longer supports that iCalendar did? ** Section 1.4.4. What is the “associated property” from which the time zone should come? ** Section 1.4.4. Per “When converting local date-times that fall in the discontinuity to UTC, the offset before the transition is used”, would normative language be appropriate here – “… the offset before the transition MUST be used.”? ** Section 4.1.2. Shouldn’t “uid” be of type “Id” (per Section 1.4.7)? ** Section 4.2.5. timeZone. Is there a reason this isn't otype “Time Zones” instead of “String”? ** Section 4.2.6. uri. Provide a reference for “URI” (RFC3986) ** Section 4.4.4. Does “web” method imply that only http and https URIs are acceptable as a value? ** Section 7. s/man-in-the-middle/on-path/ ** Section 7. I recommend further emphasizing the sensitive nature of this data OLD Calendaring and scheduling information is very privacy-sensitive. Its transmission must be done carefully to protect it from possible … NEW Calendaring and scheduling information is very privacy-sensitive. It can reveal the social network of a user; location information of this user and those in their social network; identity and credentials information; and the patterns of behavior of the user in both the physical and cyber realm. Additionally, calendar events and tasks can could influence the physical location of a user or their cyber behavior within a known time window. It’s transmission and storage must be done carefully to protect it from possible … ** Editorial Nits -- Section 1.4.3. Editorial. Colloquial language. s/is OK/is conformant/ -- Section 1.4.4. Editorial. s/see duration semantics below/see duration semantics in Section 1.4.5/ -- Section 1.4.7. Editorial. Per “… a UUID is typically a good choice”, I’m not sure this is needed given the more detailed text in Section 4.1.2 -- Section 4.1.4. Typo. s/knows/known/ -- Section 4.3. s/compelete/complete/ -- Section 4.4.5. Typo. s/themself/themselves/ -- Section 6. Editorial. Replace any dates in 2018 to be 2020 in the examples (to make the examples be closer to the publish date of this draft). |
2020-09-22
|
30 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2020-09-20
|
30 | Erik Kline | [Ballot comment] [[ questions ]] [ section 1.4.5 ] * Since non-zero fractional seconds is not the same as not having any trailing zeros, should … [Ballot comment] [[ questions ]] [ section 1.4.5 ] * Since non-zero fractional seconds is not the same as not having any trailing zeros, should the "to ensure there is only a single representation" guidance from UTCDateTime also apply here? In other words, is "PT1.300S" acceptable? [ section 1.4.7 ] * Should there be a reference to RFC 4122 here? [ section 3(.0) ] * Should the I-JSON reference be 7493? [ section 6.3 ] * Is this entries array really valid JSON? I didn't think the map key could appear in the array like this (vis. the jstask entry). [ section 6.9 ] * Should the "excluded" value be true rather than "true"? [[ nits ]] [ section 4.2.6 ] * It seems unlikely that a virtual event would have a "door access code". Perhaps "conference access code" or "meeting access code" or something? |
2020-09-20
|
30 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2020-09-18
|
30 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. To be honest, after reading the abstract, https://xkcd.com/927/ sprang to my mind (even after … [Ballot comment] Thank you for the work put into this document. To be honest, after reading the abstract, https://xkcd.com/927/ sprang to my mind (even after being relieved by the explanations of section 1.1)... Let's hope that more tools/applications will use this new standard. Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENTs and blocking DISCUSS points. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Section 1.3 -- Is the wording 'type signature' well accepted in the JSON world ? I would have expected something like 'type description' 'type grammar'. -- Section 1.48 -- As I find the 'patchObject' an interesting concept, I wonder whether it should not also be specified in another document ? (if not yet done of course, then I wonder why it is defined in this document) -- Section 4.3 -- Just to write that this section about recurrence was well thought ;-) -- Section 4.2.2 -- "This MUST be one of the following values, a value registered in the IANA JSCalendar Enum Registry, or a vendor-specific value:" I find it slightly confusing as the listed value (free/busy) are also part of the IANA table 5 later in the document. Suggest to use "This MUST be one of the value registered in the IANA JSCalendar Enum Registry (like the two listed below) or a vendor-specific value:" Same applies also to section 4.4.3 and other places (such as 'roles'). |
2020-09-18
|
30 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2020-09-10
|
30 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker |
2020-09-10
|
30 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker |
2020-09-08
|
30 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-09-24 |
2020-09-06
|
30 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2020-09-06
|
30 | Barry Leiba | Ballot has been issued |
2020-09-06
|
30 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2020-09-06
|
30 | Barry Leiba | Created "Approve" ballot |
2020-09-06
|
30 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-30.txt |
2020-09-06
|
30 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Robert Stepanek) |
2020-09-06
|
30 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2020-08-18
|
29 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-29.txt |
2020-08-18
|
29 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-08-18
|
29 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Neil Jenkins , Robert Stepanek |
2020-08-18
|
29 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-07-26
|
28 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-28.txt |
2020-07-26
|
28 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-07-26
|
28 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Neil Jenkins , Robert Stepanek |
2020-07-26
|
28 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-06-14
|
27 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2020-06-14
|
27 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-27.txt |
2020-06-14
|
27 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-06-14
|
27 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Neil Jenkins , Robert Stepanek |
2020-06-14
|
27 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-04-24
|
26 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2020-03-16
|
26 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2020-03-13
|
26 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was changed |
2020-03-13
|
26 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Point Raised - writeup needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2020-03-10
|
26 | Phillip Hallam-Baker | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Phillip Hallam-Baker. Sent review to list. |
2020-03-09
|
26 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2020-03-09
|
26 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-25. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-25. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. The IANA Functions Operator has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which we must complete. First, in the application Media Types registry on the Media Types registry page located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/ a single, new media type will be registered as follows: Name: jscalendar+json Template: [ TBD-at-Registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA Question --> IANA understands that the next three actions create the JSCalendar Properties, Types and Enum Values registries. Should these three new registries be grouped together on a new registry page on the IANA Registry matrix located at: https://www.iana.org/protocols or should it be added to an existing registry page at http://www.iana.org/protocols? Second, a new registry is to be created called the JSCalendar Properties registry. The new registry will be at a location to be determined later (see IANA question above). The registry will be managed via the following registration rules: Intended Use: Common - Specification Required Reserved - Expert Review Obsolete - Expert Review Each registration in the new registry will have the following fields: Property Name Property Type Property Context Intended Use Change Controller Reference There are substantial initial contents for the new registry and IANA will use [ RFC-to-be ] Section 8.2.6 of the current draft as authoritative guidance for populating the new registry. All of the entries will be marked as having: Intended use: Common In addition, all of the entries in the new registry will have a reference that adds [ RFC-to-be ] to the reference provided by [ RFC-to-be ] Section 8.2.6. Third, a new registry is to be created called the JSCalendar Types registry. The new registry will be at a location to be determined later (see IANA question above). The registry will be managed via the following registration rules: Intended Use: Common - Specification Required Reserved - Expert Review Obsolete - Expert Review Each registration in the new registry will have the following fields: Type Name Intended Use Change Controller Reference There are substantial initial contents for the new registry and IANA will use [ RFC-to-be ] Section 8.3.2 of the current draft as authoritative guidance for populating the new registry. All of the entries will be marked as having: Intended use: Common In addition, all of the entries in the new registry will have a reference that adds [ RFC-to-be ] to the reference provided by [ RFC-to-be ] Section 8.3.2. Fourth, a series of subregistries of the JSCalendar Property registry are to be created. Each new registry has a name of the form: Enum Values for {property-name} (Context: {context}) where {property-name} is the name(s) of the property or properties where these values may be used. This MUST be registered in the JSCalendar Properties registry created in action two above. {context} is the list of allowed object types where the property or properties may appear, as registered in the JSCalendar Properties registry created in action two above. This disambiguates where there may be two distinct properties with the same name in different contexts. The registration rules for the new sub-registries is the same as the rules for the associated JSCalendar Properties registry. The following subregistries of the JSCalendar Properties registry are created upon approval of this document: Enum Values for action (Context: Alert) +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | Enum Value | Reference or Description | Change Control | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | display | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.5.2 | IETF | | email | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.5.2 | IETF | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ Enum Values for display (Context: Link) +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | Enum Value | Reference or Description | Change Control | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | badge | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.2.7 | IETF | | graphic | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.2.7 | IETF | | fullsize | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.2.7 | IETF | | thumbnail | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.2.7 | IETF | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ Enum Values for freeBusyStatus (Context: JSEvent, JSTask) +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | Enum Value | Reference or Description | Change Control | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | free | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.2 | IETF | | busy | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.2 | IETF | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ Enum Values for kind (Context: Participant) +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | Enum Value | Reference or Description | Change Control | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | individual | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | | group | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | | resource | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | | location | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ Enum Values for participationStatus (Context: Participant) +--------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | Enum Value | Reference or Description | Change Control | +--------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | needs-action | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | | accepted | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | | declined | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | | tenative | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | | delegated | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | +--------------+------------------------------+----------------+ Enum Values for privacy (Context: JSEvent, JSTask) +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | Enum Value | Reference or Description | Change Control | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | public | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.3 | IETF | | private | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.3 | IETF | | secret | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.3 | IETF | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ Enum Values for progress (Context: JSTask, Participant) +--------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | Enum Value | Reference or Description | Change Control | +--------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | needs-action | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 5.2.4 | IETF | | in-process | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 5.2.4 | IETF | | completed | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 5.2.4 | IETF | | failed | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 5.2.4 | IETF | | cancelled | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 5.2.4 | IETF | +--------------+------------------------------+----------------+ Enum Values for relation (Context: Relation) +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | Enum Value | Reference or Description | Change Control | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | first | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 1.4.10 | IETF | | next | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 1.4.10 | IETF | | child | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 1.4.10 | IETF | | parent | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 1.4.10 | IETF | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ Enum Values for relativeTo (Context: OffsetTrigger, Location) +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | Enum Value | Reference or Description | Change Control | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | start | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.5.2 | IETF | | end | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.5.2 | IETF | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ Enum Values for roles (Context: Participant) +---------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | Enum Value | Reference or Description | Change Control | +---------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | owner | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | | attendee | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | | optional | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | | informational | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | | chair | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | +---------------+------------------------------+----------------+ Enum Values for scheduleAgent (Context: Participant) +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | Enum Value | Reference or Description | Change Control | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | server | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | | client | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | | none | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 4.4.5 | IETF | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ Enum Values for status (Context: JSEvent) +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | Enum Value | Reference or Description | Change Control | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ | confirmed | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 5.1.3 | IETF | | cancelled | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 5.1.3 | IETF | | tentative | [ RFC-to-be ] Section 5.1.3 | IETF | +------------+------------------------------+----------------+ The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2020-03-09
|
26 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2020-03-07
|
26 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-26.txt |
2020-03-07
|
26 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-03-07
|
26 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Neil Jenkins , Robert Stepanek |
2020-03-07
|
26 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-03
|
25 | Robert Sparks | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Robert Sparks. Sent review to list. |
2020-02-27
|
25 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2020-02-27
|
25 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Robert Sparks |
2020-02-26
|
25 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker |
2020-02-26
|
25 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker |
2020-02-24
|
25 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2020-02-24
|
25 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-03-09): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar@ietf.org, calsify@ietf.org, calext-chairs@ietf.org, Daniel Migault , … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-03-09): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar@ietf.org, calsify@ietf.org, calext-chairs@ietf.org, Daniel Migault , daniel.migaultf@ericsson.com, barryleiba@gmail.com Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (JSCalendar: A JSON representation of calendar data) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Calendaring Extensions WG (calext) to consider the following document: - 'JSCalendar: A JSON representation of calendar data' as 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 last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-03-09. 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. Abstract This specification defines a data model and JSON representation of calendar data that can be used for storage and data exchange in a calendaring and scheduling environment. It aims to be an alternative and, over time, successor to the widely deployed iCalendar data format, and to be unambiguous, extendable, and simple to process. In contrast to the jCal format, which is also JSON-based, JSCalendar is not a direct mapping from iCalendar, but defines the data model independently and expands semantics where appropriate. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2020-02-24
|
25 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2020-02-24
|
25 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was generated |
2020-02-23
|
25 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-25.txt |
2020-02-23
|
25 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-02-23
|
25 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2020-02-23
|
25 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-23
|
24 | Barry Leiba | Last call was requested |
2020-02-23
|
24 | Barry Leiba | Last call announcement was generated |
2020-02-23
|
24 | Barry Leiba | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-02-23
|
24 | Barry Leiba | Ballot writeup was generated |
2020-02-23
|
24 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-02-19
|
24 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-02-19
|
24 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-24.txt |
2020-02-19
|
24 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-02-19
|
24 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2020-02-19
|
24 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-18
|
23 | Barry Leiba | Notification list changed to Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com> from Daniel Migault <daniel.migaultf@ericsson.com> |
2020-02-18
|
23 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2020-02-18
|
23 | Barry Leiba | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2020-02-18
|
23 | Daniel Migault | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (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? The RFC type is standard track. This is is appropriated track as it defines format that guarantees interoperability between systems. It is mentioned in the title header. (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. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. The summary is as follows: This specification defines a data model and JSON representation of calendar data that can be used for storage and data exchange in a calendaring and scheduling environment. It aims to be an alternative, and over time successor to, the widely deployed iCalendar data format and to be unambiguous, extendable and simple to process. In contrast to the JSON-based jCal format, it is not a direct mapping from iCalendar and expands semantics where appropriate. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There were no controversy. Though the draft is defining an important change for calendar objects. The document did not raise any opposition. In addition, this document undergo a significant number of reviews, and lots of discussions happened at the IETF as well as during Calconnect meetings. Calconnect discussions have been reported by the co-authors as well as during interim meetings organized during Calconnect sessions. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There are a number of implementations. FastMail, has multiple implementations that works for beta users. This includes a perl implementation. The open-source Cyrus IMAP project includes a C implementation to translate from and to iCalendar. I suspect other implementations are developped and deployed including Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Daniel Migault is the document shepherd and Barry Leiba is the responsible AD. (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 document shepherd has reviewed the document. The document had many reviews, and I am confident the document is ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (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, we had discussions about having JSON expert to review the document, but so far have not had this review. Though this is always good to have an additional review, I do not see this as a blocking point given the number of reviews. (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. I do not have specific concerns. (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. Robert Stepanek and Neil Jenkins has confirmed on the mailing list that they are not aware of any IPR. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. (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? The WG consensus is strong. (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. (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. Nits do not raise errors. warning are not of concerns and references are not missing. idnits 2.16.02 /tmp/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-23.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'Alert' is mentioned on line 2736, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Boolean' is mentioned on line 2952, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Link' is mentioned on line 2863, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'PatchObject' is mentioned on line 2927, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Location' is mentioned on line 2877, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Participant' is mentioned on line 2899, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Relation' is mentioned on line 2936, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'String' is mentioned on line 2967, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'TimeZone' is mentioned on line 2998, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'VirtualLocation' is mentioned on line 3026, but not defined Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 10 warnings (==), 0 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. We sent th edocument for an IANA review. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? References are normatives or informational. Some references are referred as URIs. Maybe the RFC editor will move them to 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? (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. No (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 (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 8126). Daniel Migault reviewed the IANA section. We worked with respective AD and IANA, to understand how to complete the IANA section. I confirm that registries are appropriately created. I confirm newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined I confirm reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested The only point raised by IANA was to confirm allowing for 1 sentence to be enough for "Specification Required". This needs to be confirmed. """ This registry follows the Expert Review process ([RFC8126], Section 4.5) unless the "intended use" field is "common", in which case registration follows the Specification Required process ([RFC8126], Section 4.6). Preliminary community review for this registry is optional but strongly encouraged. """ (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. The document asks fro the creation of registries, so there are no expert review expected upon the media type. (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. None |
2020-02-18
|
23 | Daniel Migault | Responsible AD changed to Barry Leiba |
2020-02-18
|
23 | Daniel Migault | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2020-02-18
|
23 | Daniel Migault | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2020-02-18
|
23 | Daniel Migault | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2020-02-18
|
23 | Daniel Migault | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (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? The RFC type is standard track. This is is appropriated track as it defines format that guarantees interoperability between systems. It is mentioned in the title header. (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. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. The summary is as follows: This specification defines a data model and JSON representation of calendar data that can be used for storage and data exchange in a calendaring and scheduling environment. It aims to be an alternative, and over time successor to, the widely deployed iCalendar data format and to be unambiguous, extendable and simple to process. In contrast to the JSON-based jCal format, it is not a direct mapping from iCalendar and expands semantics where appropriate. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There were no controversy. Though the draft is defining an important change for calendar objects. The document did not raise any opposition. In addition, this document undergo a significant number of reviews, and lots of discussions happened at the IETF as well as during Calconnect meetings. Calconnect discussions have been reported by the co-authors as well as during interim meetings organized during Calconnect sessions. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There are a number of implementations. FastMail, has multiple implementations that works for beta users. This includes a perl implementation. The open-source Cyrus IMAP project includes a C implementation to translate from and to iCalendar. I suspect other implementations are developped and deployed including Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Daniel Migault is the document shepherd and Barry Leiba is the responsible AD. (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 document shepherd has reviewed the document. The document had many reviews, and I am confident the document is ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (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, we had discussions about having JSON expert to review the document, but so far have not had this review. Though this is always good to have an additional review, I do not see this as a blocking point given the number of reviews. (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. I do not have specific concerns. (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. Robert Stepanek and Neil Jenkins has confirmed on the mailing list that they are not aware of any IPR. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. (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? The WG consensus is strong. (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. (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. Nits do not raise errors. warning are not of concerns and references are not missing. idnits 2.16.02 /tmp/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-23.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'Alert' is mentioned on line 2736, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Boolean' is mentioned on line 2952, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Link' is mentioned on line 2863, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'PatchObject' is mentioned on line 2927, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Location' is mentioned on line 2877, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Participant' is mentioned on line 2899, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Relation' is mentioned on line 2936, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'String' is mentioned on line 2967, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'TimeZone' is mentioned on line 2998, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'VirtualLocation' is mentioned on line 3026, but not defined Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 10 warnings (==), 0 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. We sent th edocument for an IANA review. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? References are normatives or informational. Some references are referred as URIs. Maybe the RFC editor will move them to 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? (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. No (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 (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 8126). Daniel Migault reviewed the IANA section. We worked with respective AD and IANA, to understand how to complete the IANA section. I confirm that registries are appropriately created. I confirm newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined I confirm reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested The only point raised by IANA was to confirm allowing for 1 sentence to be enough for "Specification Required". This needs to be confirmed. """ This registry follows the Expert Review process ([RFC8126], Section 4.5) unless the "intended use" field is "common", in which case registration follows the Specification Required process ([RFC8126], Section 4.6). Preliminary community review for this registry is optional but strongly encouraged. """ (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. The document asks fro the creation of registries, so there are no expert review expected upon the media type. (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. None |
2020-02-18
|
23 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-23.txt |
2020-02-18
|
23 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Robert Stepanek) |
2020-02-18
|
23 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2020-02-06
|
22 | Daniel Migault | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (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? The RFC type is standard track. This is is apprpriated track as it defines format that guarantees interoperability between systems. It is mentionnedin the title header. (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. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. The summary is as follows: This specification defines a data model and JSON representation of calendar data that can be used for storage and data exchange in a calendaring and scheduling environment. It aims to be an alternative, and over time successor to, the widely deployed iCalendar data format and to be unambiguous, extendable and simple to process. In contrast to the JSON-based jCal format, it is not a direct mapping from iCalendar and expands semantics where appropriate. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There were no controversy. Though the draft is defining an important change for calendar objects. The document did not raise any opposition. In addition, this document undergo a significant number of reviews, and lots of discussions happened at the IETF as well as during Calconnect meetings. Calconnect discussions have been reported by the co-authors as well as during interim meetings organized during Calconnect sessions. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There are a number of implementations. FastMail, has multiple implementations that works for beta users. This includes a perl implementation. The open-source Cyrus IMAP project includes a C implementation to translate from and to iCalendar. I suspect other implementations are developped and deployed including Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Daniel Migault is the document shepherd and Barry Leiba is the responsible AD. (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 document shepherd has reviewed the document. The document had many reviews, and I am confident the document is ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (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, we had discussions about having JSON expert to review the document, but so far have not had this review. Though this is always good to have an additional review, I do not see this as a blocking point given the number of reviews. (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. I do not have specific concerns. (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. Robert Stepanek and Neil Jenkins has confirmed on the mailing list that they are not aware of any IPR. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. (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? The WG consensus is strong. (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. (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. Nits do not raise errors. warning are not of concerns. The following references have been set as normative. They could also be informative. [COLORS] "CSS Color Module", . [LINKRELS] "IANA Link Relation Types", . [TZDB] "IANA Time Zone Database", . idnits 2.16.02 /tmp/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-22.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (December 05, 2019) is 63 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'Alert' is mentioned on line 2738, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Boolean' is mentioned on line 2954, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Link' is mentioned on line 2865, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'PatchObject' is mentioned on line 2929, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Location' is mentioned on line 2879, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Participant' is mentioned on line 2901, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Relation' is mentioned on line 2938, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'String' is mentioned on line 2969, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'TimeZone' is mentioned on line 3000, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'VirtualLocation' is mentioned on line 3028, but not defined -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'COLORS' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'LINKRELS' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'TZDB' Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 11 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. We sent th edocument for an IANA review. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? References are normatives or informational. Some references are referred as URIs. Maybe the RFC editor will move them to 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? (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. No (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 (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 8126). Daniel Migault reviewed the IANA section. We worked with respective AD and IANA, to understand how to complete the IANA section. I confirm that registries are appropriately created. I confirm newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined I confirm reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested The only point raised by IANA was to confirm allowing for 1 sentence to be enough for "Specification Required". This needs to be confirmed. """ This registry follows the Expert Review process ([RFC8126], Section 4.5) unless the "intended use" field is "common", in which case registration follows the Specification Required process ([RFC8126], Section 4.6). Preliminary community review for this registry is optional but strongly encouraged. """ (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. The document asks fro the creation of registries, so there are no expert review expected upon the media type. (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. None |
2019-12-04
|
22 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-22.txt |
2019-12-04
|
22 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-12-04
|
22 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2019-12-04
|
22 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2019-11-07
|
21 | Daniel Migault | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (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? The RFC type is standard track. This is is apprpriated track as it defines format that guarantees interoperability between systems. It is mentionnedin the title header. (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. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. The summary is as follows: This specification defines a data model and JSON representation of calendar data that can be used for storage and data exchange in a calendaring and scheduling environment. It aims to be an alternative, and over time successor to, the widely deployed iCalendar data format and to be unambiguous, extendable and simple to process. In contrast to the JSON-based jCal format, it is not a direct mapping from iCalendar and expands semantics where appropriate. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There were no controversy. Though the draft is defining an important change for calendar objects. The document did not raise any opposition. In addition, this document undergo a significant number of reviews, and lots of discussions happened at the IETF as well as during Calconnect meetings. Calconnect discussions have been reported by the co-authors as well as during interim meetings organized during Calconnect sessions. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? There are a number of implementations. FastMail, has multiple implementations that works for beta users. This includes a perl implementation. The open-source Cyrus IMAP project includes a C implementation to translate from and to iCalendar. I suspect other implementations are developped and deployed including Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Daniel Migault is the document shepherd and Barry Leiba is the responsible AD. (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 document shepherd has reviewed the document. The document had many reviews, and I am confident the document is ready. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (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, we had discussions about having JSON expert to review the document, but so far have not had this review. I still believe that woudl be good. (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. I do not have specific concerns. (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. Neil Jenkins has confirmed on the mailing list that he is not aware of any IPR. check with Robert (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. (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? The WG consensus is strong. (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. (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. Nits do not raise errors. warning are not of concerns. [1]-[4] are actually references. other warning are due to notation of array defined in the document. idnits 2.16.02 /tmp/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-21.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document date (October 28, 2019) is 6 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 3616 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 3618 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 3621 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '4' on line 3623 == Missing Reference: 'Alert' is mentioned on line 2741, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Boolean' is mentioned on line 3022, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Link' is mentioned on line 2906, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'PatchObject' is mentioned on line 2988, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Location' is mentioned on line 2922, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Participant' is mentioned on line 2952, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'Relation' is mentioned on line 3000, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'String' is mentioned on line 3042, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'TimeZone' is mentioned on line 3084, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'VirtualLocation' is mentioned on line 3117, but not defined Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 10 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. IANA review. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? References are nomatives or informational. Some references are refered as URIs. Maybe the RFC editor will move them to 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? (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. No (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 (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 8126). Daniel Migault reviewed the IANA section. We worked with respective AD and IANA, to understand how to complete the IANA section. I confirm that registries are appropriately created. I confirm newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined I confirm reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (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. The document asks fro the creation of registries, so there are no expert review expected upon the media type. (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. None |
2019-10-27
|
21 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-21.txt |
2019-10-27
|
21 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-27
|
21 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2019-10-27
|
21 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-15
|
20 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-20.txt |
2019-10-15
|
20 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-15
|
20 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2019-10-15
|
20 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-03
|
19 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-19.txt |
2019-10-03
|
19 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Robert Stepanek) |
2019-10-03
|
19 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-23
|
18 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-18.txt |
2019-07-23
|
18 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-23
|
18 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2019-07-23
|
18 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-29
|
17 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-17.txt |
2019-06-29
|
17 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-06-29
|
17 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2019-06-29
|
17 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-24
|
16 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-16.txt |
2019-06-24
|
16 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-06-24
|
16 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2019-06-24
|
16 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-17
|
15 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-15.txt |
2019-06-17
|
15 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-06-17
|
15 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2019-06-17
|
15 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-06
|
14 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-14.txt |
2019-06-06
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-06-06
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2019-06-06
|
14 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2019-05-02
|
13 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-13.txt |
2019-05-02
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-05-02
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2019-05-02
|
13 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-25
|
12 | Bron Gondwana | Added to session: IETF-104: calext Mon-1120 |
2019-03-05
|
12 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-12.txt |
2019-03-05
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-05
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2019-03-05
|
12 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-10
|
11 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-11.txt |
2018-12-10
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-10
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2018-12-10
|
11 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-22
|
10 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-10.txt |
2018-11-22
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-22
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2018-11-22
|
10 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-06
|
09 | Daniel Migault | Notification list changed to Daniel Migault <daniel.migaultf@ericsson.com> |
2018-11-06
|
09 | Daniel Migault | Document shepherd changed to Daniel Migault |
2018-11-06
|
09 | Daniel Migault | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-11-06
|
09 | Daniel Migault | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2018-11-05
|
09 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-09.txt |
2018-11-05
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-05
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2018-11-05
|
09 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-08
|
08 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-08.txt |
2018-10-08
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-08
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2018-10-08
|
08 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-20
|
07 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-07.txt |
2018-09-20
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-20
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2018-09-20
|
07 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-30
|
06 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-06.txt |
2018-08-30
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-08-30
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2018-08-30
|
06 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2018-08-21
|
05 | Daniel Migault | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2018-07-02
|
05 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-05.txt |
2018-07-02
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-07-02
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2018-07-02
|
05 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2018-05-25
|
04 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-04.txt |
2018-05-25
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-05-25
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2018-05-25
|
04 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2018-05-09
|
03 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-03.txt |
2018-05-09
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-05-09
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2018-05-09
|
03 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-05
|
02 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-02.txt |
2018-03-05
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-05
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2018-03-05
|
02 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-02
|
01 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-01.txt |
2018-03-02
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-02
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Robert Stepanek , Neil Jenkins |
2018-03-02
|
01 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-29
|
00 | Daniel Migault | This document now replaces draft-jenkins-jscalendar instead of None |
2018-01-29
|
00 | Robert Stepanek | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-00.txt |
2018-01-29
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2018-01-29
|
00 | Robert Stepanek | Set submitter to "Robert Stepanek ", replaces to draft-jenkins-jscalendar and sent approval email to group chairs: calext-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-01-29
|
00 | Robert Stepanek | Uploaded new revision |