Russ, thank you for your review. I entered a No Objection ballot. Lars > On 22. Mar 2023, at 20:59, Russ Housley via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review result: Almost Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-vcard-06 > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review Date: 2023-03-22 > IETF LC End Date: 2023-04-07 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > > Summary: Almost Ready > > > Major Concerns: > > Section 2.3.10: I do not understand what an implementation is intended > to do with a MAY followed by a SHOULD: > > ... In this > case, implementations MAY choose to add the localized vCard > properties only to the localizations object. Implementations SHOULD > avoid this scenario as much as possible. > > Sections 2.12.2 and 2.12.10: What is an implementation to do? > > Sections 2.26.1 and 2.16.2: I do not understand what an implementation > is intended to do with a MAY followed by a MUST: > > ... It MAY > contain vCard IANA-registered properties which also got converted > to an IANA-registered property in the same JSContact object. In > case of conflict, the values of the JSContact property MUST be > used. > > Section 3.1: I do not understand what an implementation is intended to > do with a MAY followed by a MUST: > > ... If the fullName is not set but the name > property is, then implementations MAY derive the value of the FN > property from it. In this case, they MUST set the DERIVED > parameter on the FN property. Otherwise, they MUST set the FN > property with an empty value. > > Section 3.2.1: I do not understand what an implementation is intended > to do with a MAY followed by a MUST: > > ... The VALUE parameter MAY be set once, in which > case its value MUST be URI. > > > Minor Concerns: > > Section 2.2.2 says: "vCard properties or parameters having such values > MAY convert as defined in Section 2.16." I expected SHOULD here. If > MAY is correct, then this section needs explain how interoperability > is achieved. > > Section 2.2.3 says: "To preserve the verbatim value of the ALTID > parameter, set the JSContact extension properties props or params > defined in Section 2.16." I cannot understand this sentence. I > think this is talking about "extended properties and parameters". > > > Nits: > > It would be helpful if there is a way to come up with examples that do > not exceed 73 characters on a line. > > Section 2 says: "Its follows the same structure as the vCard v4 RFC > document [RFC6350]." I suggest dropping "RFC document". Likewise, > in the following sentence, I suggest dropping "RFC". > > Section 2.1.1 says: "Consequently, a vCard without UID property > MAY not convert to one exact instance of a JSContact card." This > use of MAY seems out of place. I suggest: "Consequently, a vCard > without UID property could result in one or more instance of a > JSContact card." > > Section 2.3.10: s/property.Figure 4 /property. Figure 4 / > > Section 2.3.15: s/vCard property converts to./vCard property converts./ > > Section 2.10.4: s/OrgUnit object/OrgUnit object./ > > Section 2.12.4: s/(Figure 33)/(Figure 33)./ > > Section 2.16: s/unknown Section/unknown; see Section/ > > Section 3.1: s/section Section 3.2/Section 3.2/ > > > Note: I did not review Section 6. > > > > -- > last-call mailing list > last-call@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
