On 2/6/22 16:54, Spencer Dawkins via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins
Review result: Ready with Nits
Thank you for doing these new relation types. I can see how they would be very
helpful.
I also looked at the -09 diffs - thank you for making those changes. They do
improve the document.
I do have some nits and questions, but none rises to the level of an issue.
Please do the right thing.
In section 2 and in section 7, "it's" should be "its".
Will fix
In section 6.1, I see
In addition to the values defined here any value defined in
[RFC8288] may be used. However these uses SHOULD be documented in
an RFC updating both [RFC5545] and [RFC8288]
I have two questions - why normative language at all for this? it's a
requirement for what people should do, not what the protocol should do.
and why SHOULD? It seems that if this is something that ought to happen, I
don't understand why allowing the possibility that it won't happen makes sense.
I was supposed to change this but managed to miss it. I believe the
language should be something like:
--------- New ----------------
In addition to the value defined here any link relation in the link
registry defined in [RFC8288], or new link relations may be used.
However these uses MUST be documented in an RFC updating [RFC5545].
------------------------------
I think this ensures:
a. We have the appropriate documentation specifying what it means in the
calendaring context and
b. There's a link from 5545
In section 8.2, I see
linkparam = ; the elements herein may appear in any order,
; and the order is not significant.
(";" "VALUE" "=" ("REFERENCE" /
"URI" /
"TEXT"))
1*(";" linkrelparam)
(";" fmttypeparam)
(";" labelparam)
(";" langparam)
*(";" other-param)
I'm asking this out of ignorance - is it obvious what happens if one or more of
these elements appears twice? I'm guessing that it's not obvious, because the
order is not significant, so one can't know a priori what an implementation
would do. If that's the case, you might want to say MUST NOT appear more than
once, to avoid indeterminate behavior. But if this would already be invalid,
that's fine.
I think this is damaged ABNF - we had a period of trying to produce
better ABNF but it was inconsistent with the way it's defined in 5545.
I think there should be a 1* in front of the others
1*(";" linkrelparam)
1*(";" fmttypeparam)
1*(";" labelparam)
1*(";" langparam)
The 5545 way is just to add comments
_______________________________________________
calsify mailing list
calsify@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
