Subject: [VCARDDAV] progressing the 'device' KIND

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:43:11 -0600

We've had discussion here about draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device,
which specifies a vCard KIND of 'device' (split out from the
'application' KIND last year). Pete Resnick, the responsible AD for
the VCCARDAV WG, has agreed to AD-sponsor this document, so it will
not be progressing as a WG item. However, we last discussed it on this
list back in April, so feedback on version -02 would be helpful to
make sure that it's in good shape. Therefore, consider this an
informal last call for comments from the vCard community. If you could
send your feedback in the next two weeks (before September 21st) that
would be great.

The spec can be found here:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device/

Thanks!

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Michael Angstadt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 14:41:19 -0400

Peter,

In section 1 on page 3, the correct KIND value for an organization is
"org", not "organization" (see RFC 6350 p25).

Also, maybe it would be beneficial to include one or two RELATED properties
in the vCard example on page 6, since page 4 emphasizes the importance of
using this property.

Regards,
-Mike
http://code.google.com/p/ez-vcard
http://mikeangstadt.name/mike-angstadt.vcf

On Friday, September 7, 2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlBKFg8ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vx6sgCfY5IFsUIURWH1iaJWD7NN1nVq
> YxAAn3TRssfXavpzH6E7hCjV6GHeOuNB
> =eycE
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> VCARDDAV mailing list
> [email-masked] <javascript:;>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav
>

---

From: Joe Marcus Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 14:52:20 -0400

> "org", not "organization" (see RFC 6350 p25).

Thanks for your comments, Michael.  I'm looking at page 3, but I don't
know to what "organization" you are referring.  We are not calling out
organization as a KIND value here, nor are we calling out "organization"
as a property.  On page 4 we refer to ORG as a potential device vCard
property.

> 
> Also, maybe it would be beneficial to include one or two RELATED
> properties in the vCard example on page 6, since page 4 emphasizes the
> importance of using this property.

Thanks for the suggestion.  I'll talk it over with Gonzalo and Peter.
This is likely a good thing to show.

Joe

> [email-masked]

-- 
Joe Marcus Clarke, CCIE #5384,         |          |
SCJP, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, VCP        |||||      |||||
Distinguished Services Engineer ..:|||||||||::|||||||||:..
Phone: +1 (919) 392-2867         c i s c o  S y s t e m s
Email: [email-masked]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Michael Angstadt <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:54:58 -0400

> as a property.  On page 4 we refer to ORG as a potential device vCard

Hi Joe.  I was referring to the following sentence in section 1:

 "During its work on the base vCard4 specification, the VCARDDAV Working
Group defined values of "individual", "organization", "group", and
"location" for the KIND property."

The string "organization" is not a valid value for the KIND property.
 However, the string "org" *is* a valid value (see RFC 6350 p25).  The sentence
should read as follows:

"During its work on the base vCard4 specification, the VCARDDAV Working
Group defined values of "individual", "org", "group", and "location" for
the KIND property."

Thanks,
Mike

---

From: Joe Marcus Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:01:59 -0400

On 9/9/12 6:54 PM, Michael Angstadt wrote:
>  However, the string "org" *is* a valid value (see RFC 6350 p25).
>  The sentence should read as follows:
> 

Sorry, just got into India after a long trip, and I guess I can't count
very well :-).  I found the real page three now.  We will definitely
correct this.  Thanks for the input.

Joe

---

From: Peter Sheerin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:07:50 -0700

Can you briefly describe the differences between this progressing as a 
WG item vs. AD?

And will this be submitted for final approval on the 21st, or will there 
be further opportunities to modify it?

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:38:04 -0600

On 9/11/12 9:07 AM, Peter Sheerin wrote:
> Can you briefly describe the differences between this progressing
> as a WG item vs. AD?

For a draft like this, the differences are minor. We will have a
4-week IETF Last Call instead of a 2-week Working Group Last Call
followed by a 2-week IETF Last Call. There will never be a consensus
call in the VCARDDAV WG for adoption of the document as a WG item, so
it will never have a draft name like draft-ietf-vcarddav-kind-device.
Working group participants and other interested individuals will still
have an opportunity to provide feedback during IETF Last Call. Etc.

> And will this be submitted for final approval on the 21st, or will
> there be further opportunities to modify it?

After the 21st, the authors will incorporate the feedback we've
received and publish a revised I-D. We will also ask our document
shepherd to provide a write-up to the sponsoring area director. Once
he has done that, the AD will complete his own review and perhaps
provide further comments, which the authors will incorporate, perhaps
resulting in another revised I-D. The AD will then request a 4-week
IETF Last Call. More comments might be made and specialized reviews
(SecDir, Gen-ART, AppsDir) might occur, as a result of which the
authors might submit yet another revised I-D. The AD will then
schedule the document for discussion and balloting by the IESG;
feedback from IESG members might result in yet another revised I-D. If
it is approved for publication by the IESG, it will then go to the RFC
Editor team, which will prepare it for publication as an RFC (further
modifications might result at this point during the "AUTH48" phase,
which is the last chance for the authors to make minor changes).

Anyway, that's the short version of how an AD-sponsored I-D becomes an
RFC. :)

Peter

> On 2012-09-07 08:43, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: We've had discussion
> here about draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device, which specifies a
> vCard KIND of 'device' (split out from the 'application' KIND last
> year). Pete Resnick, the responsible AD for the VCCARDAV WG, has
> agreed to AD-sponsor this document, so it will not be progressing
> as a WG item. However, we last discussed it on this list back in
> April, so feedback on version -02 would be helpful to make sure
> that it's in good shape. Therefore, consider this an informal last
> call for comments from the vCard community. If you could send your
> feedback in the next two weeks (before September 21st) that would
> be great.
> 
> -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________ VCARDDAV mailing
>> list [email-masked] 
> _______________________________________________ VCARDDAV mailing
> list [email-masked]

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:36:42 -0400

> received and publish a revised I-D. We will also ask [...etc...]

In short, what PSA's longer explanation means is that there will be
*at least* 5 to 8 weeks (possibly longer, depending upon reviews and
responses, and other timing delays) after 21 Sept before the document
goes into the RFC Editor queue.  During that period, changes will be
easy, though the later change requests come in that period the more
scrutiny will be placed on the requests.

After that, there's an indeterminate time (guess: 4 to 6 weeks) before
the RFC Editor finished with it and changes *can't* be made.

Barry