Subject: [calsify] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-30: (with COMMENT)

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2020 17:40:38 -0700

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-30: 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.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

[[ questions ]]

[ section 1.4.5 ]

* Since non-zero fractional seconds is not the same as not having
  any trailing zeros, should the "to ensure there is only a single
  representation" guidance from UTCDateTime also apply here?

  In other words, is "PT1.300S" acceptable?

[ section 1.4.7 ]

* Should there be a reference to RFC 4122 here?

[ section 3(.0) ]

* Should the I-JSON reference be 7493?

[ section 6.3 ]

* Is this entries array really valid JSON?  I didn't think the map key
  could appear in the array like this (vis. the jstask entry).

[ section 6.9 ]

* Should the "excluded" value be true rather than "true"?

[[ nits ]]

[ section 4.2.6 ]

* It seems unlikely that a virtual event would have a "door access code".
  Perhaps "conference access code" or "meeting access code" or something?

---

From: "Robert Stepanek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:05:16 +0200

Hi Erik,

many thanks for your review! I have updated the draft document. We will submit the new version when we gathered all feedback from IESG.

>   In other words, is "PT1.300S" acceptable?

It is not. I have updated the description of the Duration type.

>   Perhaps "conference access code" or "meeting access code" or something?

Thanks for spotting all of these! I have fixed the document accordingly.

Best regards,
Robert