Subject: [calsify] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-calext-01-01: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 23:39:56 -0800

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-calext-01-01: 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.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-calext/

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

As I remarked on the -01-00:
How is "use cases where there is demand" to be evaluated?  In a certain
sense, if a single user asks for a feature, that is "demand", but I do
not think that scenario should prompt us to take on the work in question.

Do we perhaps want to say "significant" or "sufficient" demand?

Separately, does a "robust" mapping between icalendar/jscalendar or
vcard/jscontact entail the ability to round-trip between formats without
loss of fidelity?  Or is it a weaker requirement, to allow for some variation
when appropriate for the data models of the pair of protocols in question?

---

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 10:30:28 -0800

> not think that scenario should prompt us to take on the work in question.

I think my answer at the time still applies :)  "Somebody willing to write the document and at least two implementations" would be my rough standard.

> Do we perhaps want to say "significant" or "sufficient" demand?

Does it make any difference in practice?

> when appropriate for the data models of the pair of protocols in question?

I'd say "ability to round trip or a description of why it's not feasible for a particular case".  This is more a "think about this" than a hard rule, because there will be some things which simply can't roundtrip.  But so far with jscalendar and icalendar for example, we've been trying to backport anything new in jcalendar to icalendar such that we can roundtrip safely.

Regards,

Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  [email-masked]

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 19:49:31 -0800

> I think my answer at the time still applies :)  "Somebody willing to write the document and at least two implementations" would be my rough standard.

It looks like your answer at the time only went to calsify@, so I didn't
see it then :)
That seems like a fine characterization to me on first read.

> Does it make any difference in practice?

Oh ... probably not.

> I'd say "ability to round trip or a description of why it's not feasible for a particular case".  This is more a "think about this" than a hard rule, because there will be some things which simply…

Thanks for sharing your thinking.  I like not having a hard rule, and that
sounds like a good goal to have.

Thanks,

Ben