jCal: The JSON Format for iCalendar
RFC 7265

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Richard Barnes) Yes

Barry Leiba (was Discuss) Yes

Comment (2014-03-26)
No email
send info
I very much like this document, and have switched to "Yes".  Thanks for resolving my DISCUSS and considering my other comments.

(Pete Resnick) Yes

Comment (2014-03-21 for -09)
No email
send info
Sounds like the document editor has the GenArt and SecDir reviews in hand and is working through the issues. No showstoppers in there as far as I see, but we will make sure to address those before publication.

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2014-03-25 for -09)
No email
send info
Some changes are being discussed due to Robert Spark's gen-art review, but I do not see a new draft. Shouldn't that appear before we make the final approval of this document?

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

Comment (2014-03-23 for -09)
No email
send info
I'm good with this assuming the gen-art points and Barry's issues get resolved. One nit in section 3.5.2:

"To ease processing in jCal, the value to such parameters
   MUST be represented in an array containing the separated values."
   
I think this is supposed to say "of such parameters".

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2014-03-23 for -09)
No email
send info
To update and support Barry's Discuss, RFC 7158 and RFC 7159 have now been published.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2014-03-24 for -09)
No email
send info
section 1: this is odd: "Extensions to the underlying
iCalendar specification must not lead to requiring an update
to jCal." How are you going to prevent that happening?  I
think the best you can do is point out how such an extension
could break jcal and recommend to not do that.

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2014-03-24 for -09)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing the SecDir review comments.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection