JMAP for Calendars
draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-17
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-04-11
|
17 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-17.txt |
2024-04-11
|
17 | Neil Jenkins | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Neil Jenkins) |
2024-04-11
|
17 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2024-04-10
|
16 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2024-04-09
|
16 | Bron Gondwana | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? There is strong consensus regarding the specified calendar access and sync definitions. Since last IETF there is now also consensus regarding the scheduling definitions. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There has been controversy about the proposed solution for achieving scheduling regarding its interoperability with existing calendar scheduling protocols. This has been resolved since last IETF by introducing a new property called "calendarUserAddress" to resolve interoperability concerns with legacy calendaring formats like iCalendar [RFC5545][18]. A related draft is [draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar][19] which defines how to convert between iCalendar and JSCalendar. Additionally, Discussion about Calendar role deviating from JMAP Mail was a bit controversial and consensus a bit rough, but there was consensus. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This is believed to have been implemented in Fastmail, and others have expressed interest. Audriga also has implemented parts of the JMAP Calendars specification. Test implementations have been written by other JMAP server authors. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. Primary interaction is with calext, which has considerable membership overlap with jmap in addition to having been notified on the mailing list about this document. Additionally, it interacts with the technologies typically developed within the CalConnect organization. CalConnect also has considerable membership overlap and members have reviewed the draft. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document does not meet any formal expert review criteria. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? No YANG. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. Running through `jq` reports no errors. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? This document is needed, clearly written, correctly designed and complete. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? Going through the list: * Date and Times have been reviewed and discussed multiple times. * iCalendar and jCal are closely related and review has happened in calext. There are no further issues that I can see. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard, as it extends a proposed standard. Datatracker reflects that. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes, the authors have been asked, no known IPR. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) idnits reports that there are non-ascii characters. It does not contain the section "Implementation Status" as defined in Content Guidelines' "recommended content". This is likely fine. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. References are believed by the shepherd to be correctly categorized. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All references are freely available. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? draft-ietf-jmap-sharing has been submitted to the IESG for Publication. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No RFCs will be changed. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). IANA considerations are consistent with the document. Reservations have not yet been made for new registry entries. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No new IANA registries. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ [18]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5545 [19]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar/ |
2024-04-09
|
16 | Bron Gondwana | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2024-04-09
|
16 | Bron Gondwana | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2024-04-09
|
16 | (System) | Changed action holders to Murray Kucherawy (IESG state changed) |
2024-04-09
|
16 | Bron Gondwana | Responsible AD changed to Murray Kucherawy |
2024-04-09
|
16 | Bron Gondwana | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2024-04-08
|
16 | Joris Baum | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? There is strong consensus regarding the specified calendar access and sync definitions. Since last IETF there is now also consensus regarding the scheduling definitions. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There has been controversy about the proposed solution for achieving scheduling regarding its interoperability with existing calendar scheduling protocols. This has been resolved since last IETF by introducing a new property called "calendarUserAddress" to resolve interoperability concerns with legacy calendaring formats like iCalendar [RFC5545][18]. A related draft is [draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar][19] which defines how to convert between iCalendar and JSCalendar. Additionally, Discussion about Calendar role deviating from JMAP Mail was a bit controversial and consensus a bit rough, but there was consensus. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This is believed to have been implemented in Fastmail, and others have expressed interest. Audriga also has implemented parts of the JMAP Calendars specification. Test implementations have been written by other JMAP server authors. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. Primary interaction is with calext, which has considerable membership overlap with jmap in addition to having been notified on the mailing list about this document. Additionally, it interacts with the technologies typically developed within the CalConnect organization. CalConnect also has considerable membership overlap and members have reviewed the draft. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document does not meet any formal expert review criteria. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? No YANG. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. Running through `jq` reports no errors. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? This document is needed, clearly written, correctly designed and complete. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? Going through the list: * Date and Times have been reviewed and discussed multiple times. * iCalendar and jCal are closely related and review has happened in calext. There are no further issues that I can see. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard, as it extends a proposed standard. Datatracker reflects that. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes, the authors have been asked, no known IPR. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) idnits reports that there are non-ascii characters. It does not contain the section "Implementation Status" as defined in Content Guidelines' "recommended content". This is likely fine. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. References are believed by the shepherd to be correctly categorized. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All references are freely available. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? draft-ietf-jmap-sharing has been submitted to the IESG for Publication. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No RFCs will be changed. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). IANA considerations are consistent with the document. Reservations have not yet been made for new registry entries. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No new IANA registries. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ [18]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5545 [19]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar/ |
2024-03-20
|
16 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-16.txt |
2024-03-20
|
16 | Neil Jenkins | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Neil Jenkins) |
2024-03-20
|
16 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2024-03-19
|
15 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-15.txt |
2024-03-19
|
15 | Neil Jenkins | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Neil Jenkins) |
2024-03-19
|
15 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2024-03-07
|
14 | Joris Baum | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? There is strong consensus regarding the specified calendar access and sync definitions. However, there is no consensus regarding the way scheduling shall be achieved via JMAP Calendars. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There is controversy about the proposed solution for achieving scheduling regarding its interoperability with existing calendar scheduling protocols. The main criticism was that it is yet unclear if scheduleId, which is defined by this spec, will be useful for interoperable scheduling with legacy calendaring formats like iCalendar [RFC5545][18]. More details might be necessary (currently being worked on in [draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar][19]) to demonstrate interoperability a between scheduling as supported by iCalendar and scheduling as supported by JSCalendar. Additionally, Discussion about Calendar role deviating from JMAP Mail was a bit controversial and consensus a bit rough, but there was consensus. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This is believed to have been implemented in Fastmail, and others have expressed interest. Audriga also has implemented parts of the JMAP Calendars specification. Test implementations have been written by other JMAP server authors. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. Primary interaction is with calext, which has considerable membership overlap with jmap in addition to having been notified on the mailing list about this document. Additionally, it interacts with the technologies typically developed within the CalConnect organization. CalConnect also has considerable membership overlap and members have reviewed the draft. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document does not meet any formal expert review criteria. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? No YANG. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. Running through `jq` reported the following errors (see filename to identify example): ``` $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure1.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 31, column 13 $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 69 $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure4.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 69 $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure5.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 48 $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure6.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 9, column 46 $ cat /tmp/section_8_1_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 8, column 18 $ cat /tmp/section_8_2_figure1.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 19, column 24 $ cat /tmp/section_8_2_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid numeric literal at line 14, column 23 $ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid literal at line 5, column 44 $ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure3.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected another key-value pair at line 8, column 8 $ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure5.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 7, column 30 $ cat /tmp/section_8_4_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected another key-value pair at line 7, column 7 ``` ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? This document is needed, clearly written and correctly designed. However, scheduling may be underspecified as multiple individuals have raised concerns regarding this at the JMAP mailing list as well as within CalConnect. In my opinion the specification would either benefit from a separate scheduling section and providing more details on `ParticipantIdentity.sendTo` or from moving scheduling out of the specification. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? Going through the list: * Date and Times have been reviewed and discussed multiple times. * iCalendar and jCal are closely related and review has happened in calext. There are no further issues that I can see. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard, as it extends a proposed standard. Datatracker reflects that. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes, the authors have been asked, no known IPR. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. Neil is willing to be listed. Mike Douglas hat yet to confirm him being listed as author. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) idnits reports that there are non-ascii characters. It does not contain the section as defined in "recommended content" which is likely fine. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. References are believed by the shepherd to be correctly categorized. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All references are freely available. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? draft-ietf-jmap-sharing has been submitted to the IESG for Publication. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No RFCs will be changed. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). IANA considerations are consistent with the document. Reservations have not yet been made for new registry entries. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No new IANA registries. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ [18]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5545 [19]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar/ |
2024-02-29
|
14 | Joris Baum | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? There is strong consensus regarding the specified calendar access and sync definitions. However, there is no consensus regarding the way scheduling shall be achieved via JMAP Calendars. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There is controversy about the proposed solution for achieving scheduling regarding its interoperability with existing calendar scheduling protocols. The main criticism was that it is yet unclear if scheduleId, which is defined by this spec, will be useful for interoperable scheduling with legacy calendaring formats like iCalendar [RFC5545][18]. More details might be necessary (currently being worked on in [draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar][19]) to demonstrate interoperability a between scheduling as supported by iCalendar and scheduling as supported by JSCalendar. Additionally, Discussion about Calendar role deviating from JMAP Mail was a bit controversial and consensus a bit rough, but there was consensus. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This is believed to have been implemented in Fastmail, and others have expressed interest. Audriga also has implemented parts of the JMAP Calendars specification. Test implementations have been written by other JMAP server authors. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. Primary interaction is with calext, which has considerable membership overlap with jmap in addition to having been notified on the mailing list about this document. Additionally, it interacts with the technologies typically developed within the CalConnect organization. CalConnect also has considerable membership overlap and members have reviewed the draft. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document does not meet any formal expert review criteria. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? No YANG. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. Running through `jq` reported the following errors (see filename to identify example): ``` $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure1.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 31, column 13 $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 69 $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure4.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 69 $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure5.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 48 $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure6.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 9, column 46 $ cat /tmp/section_8_1_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 8, column 18 $ cat /tmp/section_8_2_figure1.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 19, column 24 $ cat /tmp/section_8_2_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid numeric literal at line 14, column 23 $ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid literal at line 5, column 44 $ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure3.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected another key-value pair at line 8, column 8 $ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure5.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 7, column 30 $ cat /tmp/section_8_4_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected another key-value pair at line 7, column 7 ``` ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? This document is needed, clearly written and correctly designed. However, scheduling may be underspecified as multiple individuals have raised concerns regarding this at the JMAP mailing list as well as within CalConnect. In my opinion the specification would either benefit from a separate scheduling section and providing more details on `ParticipantIdentity.sendTo` or from moving scheduling out of the specification. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? Going through the list: * Date and Times have been reviewed and discussed multiple times. * iCalendar and jCal are closely related and review has happened in calext. There are no further issues that I can see. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard, as it extends a proposed standard. Datatracker reflects that. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes, the authors have been asked, no known IPR. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. Neil is willing to be listed. Mike Douglas hat yet to confirm him being listed as author. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) idnits reports that there are non-ascii characters. It does not contain the section as defined in "recommended content" which is likely fine. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. References are believed by the shepherd to be correctly categorized. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All references are freely available. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? draft-ietf-jmap-sharing has been submitted to the IESG for Publication. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No RFCs will be changed. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). IANA considerations are consistent with the document. Reservations have not yet been made for new registry entries. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No new IANA registries. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ [18]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5545 [19]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar/ |
2024-02-29
|
14 | Joris Baum | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? There is strong consensus regarding the specified calendar access and sync definitions. However, there is no consensus regarding the way scheduling shall be achieved via JMAP Calendars. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There is controversy about the proposed solution for achieving scheduling regarding its interoperability with existing calendar scheduling protocols. The main criticism was that it is yet unclear if scheduleId, which is defined by this spec, will be useful for interoperable scheduling with legacy calendaring formats like iCalendar [RFC5545][18]. More details might be necessary (currently being worked on in [draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar][19]) to demonstrate interoperability a between scheduling as supported by iCalendar and scheduling as supported by JSCalendar. Additionally, Discussion about Calendar role deviating from JMAP Mail was a bit controversial and consensus a bit rough, but there was consensus. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This is believed to have been implemented in Fastmail, and others have expressed interest. Audriga also has implemented parts of the JMAP Calendars specification. Test implementations have been written by other JMAP server authors. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. Primary interaction is with calext, which has considerable membership overlap with jmap in addition to having been notified on the mailing list about this document. Additionally, it interacts with the technologies typically developed within the CalConnect organization. CalConnect also has considerable membership overlap and members have reviewed the draft. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document does not meet any formal expert review criteria. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? No YANG. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. Running through `jq` reported the following errors (see filename to identify example): ``` $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure1.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 31, column 13 $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 69 $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure4.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 69 $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure5.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 48 $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure6.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 9, column 46 $ cat /tmp/section_8_1_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 8, column 18 $ cat /tmp/section_8_2_figure1.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 19, column 24 $ cat /tmp/section_8_2_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid numeric literal at line 14, column 23 $ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid literal at line 5, column 44 $ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure3.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected another key-value pair at line 8, column 8 $ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure5.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 7, column 30 $ cat /tmp/section_8_4_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected another key-value pair at line 7, column 7 ``` ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? This document is needed, clearly written and correctly designed. However, scheduling may be underspecified as multiple individuals have raised concerns regarding this at the JMAP mailing list as well as within CalConnect. In my opinion the specification would either benefit from a separate scheduling section and providing more details on `ParticipantIdentity.sendTo` or from moving scheduling out of the specification. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? Going through the list: * Date and Times have been reviewed and discussed multiple times. * iCalendar and jCal are closely related and review has happened in calext. There are no further issues that I can see. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard, as it extends a proposed standard. Datatracker reflects that. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes, the authors have been asked, no known IPR. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. Neil is willing to be listed. However, Mike Douglas considers not being listed. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) idnits reports that there are non-ascii characters. It does not contain the section as defined in "recommended content" which is likely fine. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. References are believed by the shepherd to be correctly categorized. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All references are freely available. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? draft-ietf-jmap-sharing has been submitted to the IESG for Publication. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No RFCs will be changed. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). IANA considerations are consistent with the document. Reservations have not yet been made for new registry entries. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No new IANA registries. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ [18]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5545 [19]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar/ |
2024-02-29
|
14 | Joris Baum | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? There is strong consensus regarding the specified calendar access and sync definitions. However, there is no consensus regarding the way scheduling shall be achieved via JMAP Calendars. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There is controversy about the proposed solution for achieving scheduling regarding its interoperability with existing calendar scheduling protocols. The main criticism was that it is yet unclear if scheduleId, which is defined by this spec, will be useful for interoperable scheduling with legacy calendaring formats like iCalendar [RFC5545][18]. More details might be necessary (currently being worked on in [draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar][19]) to demonstrate interoperability a between scheduling as supported by iCalendar and scheduling as supported by JSCalendar. Additionally, Discussion about Calendar role deviating from JMAP Mail was a bit controversial and consensus a bit rough, but there was consensus. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? This is believed to have been implemented in Fastmail, and others have expressed interest. Audriga also has implemented parts of the JMAP Calendars specification. Test implementations have been written by other JMAP server authors. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. Primary interaction is with calext, which has considerable membership overlap with jmap in addition to having been notified on the mailing list about this document. Additionally, it interacts with the technologies typically developed within the CalConnect organization. CalConnect also has considerable membership overlap and members have reviewed the draft. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document does not meet any formal expert review criteria. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? No YANG. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. Running through `jq` reported the following errors (see filename to identify example): ``` $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure1.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 31, column 13 $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 69 $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure4.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 69 $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure5.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 48 $ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure6.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 9, column 46 $ cat /tmp/section_8_1_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 8, column 18 $ cat /tmp/section_8_2_figure1.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 19, column 24 $ cat /tmp/section_8_2_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid numeric literal at line 14, column 23 $ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid literal at line 5, column 44 $ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure3.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected another key-value pair at line 8, column 8 $ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure5.json | jq jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 7, column 30 $ cat /tmp/section_8_4_figure2.json | jq jq: parse error: Expected another key-value pair at line 7, column 7 ``` ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? This document is needed, clearly written and correctly designed. However, scheduling may be underspecified as multiple individuals have raised concerns regarding this at the JMAP mailing list as well as within CalConnect. In my opinion the specification would either benefit from a separate scheduling section and providing more details on `ParticipantIdentity.sendTo` or from moving scheduling out of the specification. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? Going through the list: * Date and Times have been reviewed and discussed multiple times. * iCalendar and jCal are closely related and review has happened in calext. There are no further issues that I can see. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? Proposed Standard, as it extends a proposed standard. Datatracker reflects that. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. Yes, the authors have been asked, no known IPR. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. Both authors are willing to be listed. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) idnits reports that there are non-ascii characters. It does not contain the section as defined in "recommended content" which is likely fine. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. References are believed by the shepherd to be correctly categorized. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? All references are freely available. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? draft-ietf-jmap-sharing has been submitted to the IESG for Publication. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No RFCs will be changed. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). IANA considerations are consistent with the document. Reservations have not yet been made for new registry entries. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. No new IANA registries. [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ [18]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5545 [19]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar/ |
2024-02-28
|
14 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-14.txt |
2024-02-28
|
14 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-02-28
|
14 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass , Neil Jenkins |
2024-02-28
|
14 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2024-02-07
|
13 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-13.txt |
2024-02-07
|
13 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-02-07
|
13 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass , Neil Jenkins |
2024-02-07
|
13 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2023-11-19
|
12 | Bron Gondwana | Notification list changed to joris@audriga.com because the document shepherd was set |
2023-11-19
|
12 | Bron Gondwana | Document shepherd changed to Joris Baum |
2023-11-09
|
12 | Bron Gondwana | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2023-11-06
|
12 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-12.txt |
2023-11-06
|
12 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-11-06
|
12 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass , Neil Jenkins |
2023-11-06
|
12 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2023-09-27
|
11 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-03-26
|
11 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-11.txt |
2023-03-26
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-03-26
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass , Neil Jenkins |
2023-03-26
|
11 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2022-12-04
|
10 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-10.txt |
2022-12-04
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-12-04
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass , Neil Jenkins |
2022-12-04
|
10 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2022-10-05
|
09 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-09.txt |
2022-10-05
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-10-05
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass , Neil Jenkins |
2022-10-05
|
09 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2022-08-27
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-02-23
|
08 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-08.txt |
2022-02-23
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-02-23
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass , Neil Jenkins |
2022-02-23
|
08 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2022-02-03
|
07 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-07.txt |
2022-02-03
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-02-03
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass , Neil Jenkins |
2022-02-03
|
07 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2022-01-28
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-10-20
|
06 | Bron Gondwana | Added to session: interim-2021-jmap-02 |
2021-07-27
|
06 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-06.txt |
2021-07-27
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-07-27
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass , Neil Jenkins |
2021-07-27
|
06 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2021-04-14
|
05 | Bron Gondwana | Added to session: interim-2021-calext-01 |
2021-04-14
|
05 | Bron Gondwana | Added to session: interim-2021-jmap-01 |
2021-03-01
|
05 | Bron Gondwana | Added to session: IETF-110: jmap Thu-1700 |
2021-01-24
|
05 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-05.txt |
2021-01-24
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-01-24
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass , Neil Jenkins |
2021-01-24
|
05 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-07-26
|
04 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-04.txt |
2020-07-26
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-07-26
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass , Neil Jenkins |
2020-07-26
|
04 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-06-14
|
03 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-03.txt |
2020-06-14
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-06-14
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass , Neil Jenkins |
2020-06-14
|
03 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-09
|
02 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-02.txt |
2020-03-09
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-03-09
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass , Neil Jenkins |
2020-03-09
|
02 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2019-10-28
|
01 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-01.txt |
2019-10-28
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-28
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass , Neil Jenkins |
2019-10-28
|
01 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-29
|
00 | Bron Gondwana | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-04-29
|
00 | Bron Gondwana | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2019-04-29
|
00 | Bron Gondwana | This document now replaces draft-jenkins-jmapcalendars instead of None |
2019-04-29
|
00 | Neil Jenkins | New version available: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-00.txt |
2019-04-29
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2019-04-29
|
00 | Neil Jenkins | Set submitter to "Neil Jenkins ", replaces to draft-jenkins-jmapcalendars and sent approval email to group chairs: jmap-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-04-29
|
00 | Neil Jenkins | Uploaded new revision |