Re: [Last-Call] Feedback on draft-ietf-calext-ical-relations

[Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini=40ericsson.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mark for this feedback! I am cc’ing the calext working group for visibility.

 

Francesca

 

From: iesg <iesg-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, 27 October 2021 at 04:18
To: last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>, The IESG <iesg@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-calext-ical-relations@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-calext-ical-relations@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: calext-chairs@xxxxxxxx <calext-chairs@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Feedback on draft-ietf-calext-ical-relations

I was recently made aware of this draft.

A specification should not opt itself into the use of the link relation registry unless it's actually using link relations -- otherwise, there's going to be weird overlaps / misalignments.

>From a brief glance, this spec is *not* defining itself as a serialisation of links in the 8288 sense -- e.g., there's no link context, no mention of target attributes, etc. Basically, it needs to describe itself in terms of the model defined in [Section 2](https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=340340b7-6b987855-3403002c-86073b36ea28-006bdccbf3349611&q=1&e=0f17a05e-7881-4187-8983-e29e01164a21&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Frfc%2Frfc8288.html%23section-2).

Two alternative paths forward would address this concern:

1) Define this as a serialisation of 8288 links
2) Use a separate registry

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=f1cea606-ae559ee4-f1cee69d-86073b36ea28-1225c525f9ca44ba&q=1&e=0f17a05e-7881-4187-8983-e29e01164a21&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnot.net%2F

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call