Thanks for your review! I have updated the RFC document but will need to wait for the end of IETF 116 to publish.
Some remarks on your feedback below:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, at 5:59 PM, Reese Enghardt via Datatracker wrote:
Major issues:Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2These sections consider "the [full] name of the entity represented by thecard". As I'm sure you're aware, names can be complex and contextual, and whichname to use for a person is not always obvious. [...]
We did not intend to restrict the "name" property to only be certain types of names. I now updated the description of this property to be: "The name of the entity represented by this Card. This can be any type of name, e.g. it can but need not be the legal name of a person."
Section 2.2.5For the grammaticalGender property, it seems that the values should be"feminine" (rather than "female"), "masculine" (rather than "male"), and"neuter", if the value labels are indeed intended to represent grammaticalgender (see, for example, the BritannicaDictionary: https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/neuter). As an alternative, Isuggest changing these labels to more closely represent how one wouldrespectfully talk about individuals, by changing "neuter" to "gender-neutral"while keeping "female" and "male". It is not clear to me why the"animate" value exists in addition to the above grammatical genders, as thisvalue does not convey information about how to address the entity, but if youare sure that there's a use case for this value, I'll defer to your expertise.
Thanks, I renamed "male" and "female" to "masculine" and "feminine".
We used Wikipedia to determine the common contrasts in grammatical genders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_type_of_grammatical_genders). This includes "animate" and "inanimate" for languages such as Georgian and Native American languages.
I realized we did not include "common" but now have added this as well.
Section 1.5.4The descriptions for @type and type sound very similar. Is it possible to statemore clearly what the difference between the two is? Is it worthmentioning/explaining the @ in an earlier notation section?
I added an introductory section to clarify the purpose of the @type property and contrast it to the "type" property.
Nits/editorial comments:The word "card" is capitalized in some sections and not others (e.g.,capitalized in 2.2.2 but not in 2.2.1) without an obvious difference insemantics. Please consider making the capitalization consistent in such cases.
Done
Section 1.5.2"-253+1 <= value <= 2^53-1"Can the ^ be removed to make the notation consistent?
Done
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
