Subject: [Jcardcal] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcal-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:01:14 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcal-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcal/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:10:15 -0400

> could break jcal and recommend to not do that.

It's a lower-case "must not".  What it's saying is that jCal is
designed to accommodate extensions to iCalendar, without requiring
changes to jCal.  It's not talking about changes that might show up in
a new major iCalendar version... just changes that use the normal
iCalendar extension mechanisms.

Barry

---

From: Philipp Kewisch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 22:29:20 +0100

> iCalendar extension mechanisms.
Indeed, this was the intent. Do you still think it needs changing?

Philipp

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 21:42:33 +0000

Hiya,

On 03/24/2014 09:10 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> It's a lower-case "must not".  

Sure, I wasn't making a 2119 point though.

> What it's saying is that jCal is

Yep. My comment is really that it'd be better to say
what to avoid doing in any future such RFCs instead of
just saying "You're not allowed to be naughty." But
just a comment, if you think its fine that's ok too.

S

---

From: Philipp Kewisch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 23:15:26 +0100

> just a comment, if you think its fine that's ok too.
I personally think its fine, the introduction to that list says its
merely a design consideration, i.e "we designed jCal so that extensions
to iCalendar won't require changes to this document". There is nothing
in particular to avoid in an extension to iCalendar, as long as the
extension has backwards compatibility to iCalendar in mind, which will
certainly be the case.

Thank you for the comment though, if this weren't a design consideration
I'd agree that we could change the wording and make it more clear what
needs to be done.

Philipp