New Properties for iCalendar
draft-ietf-calext-extensions-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-10-23
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-10-06
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-09-15
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-09-15
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from IANA |
2016-09-15
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2016-09-15
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2016-09-14
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-09-14
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2016-09-06
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to IANA from EDIT |
2016-08-31
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-08-29
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2016-08-25
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-08-23
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-08-23
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-08-23
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-08-23
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-08-23
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2016-08-23
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-08-23
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-08-23
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-08-23
|
05 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2016-08-22
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2016-08-22
|
05 | Cyrus Daboo | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2016-08-22
|
05 | Cyrus Daboo | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-extensions-05.txt |
2016-07-14
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2016-06-30
|
04 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-06-30
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-06-30
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] If I am late for the discussion: please put this into substate "revise ID needed". Thank you. |
2016-06-30
|
04 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot comment text updated for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-06-29
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-06-29
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. |
2016-06-29
|
04 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-06-29
|
04 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-06-29
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for the updated text to address the SecDir review and Stephen's additional comments (I followed that discussion as well). |
2016-06-29
|
04 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Kathleen Moriarty has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2016-06-29
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] I think it'd be a fine thing if the calext WG were to consider privacy issues with caldav in general. As it'd probably … [Ballot comment] I think it'd be a fine thing if the calext WG were to consider privacy issues with caldav in general. As it'd probably be wrong to try get all of that done in this one document, perhaps we could try and see if the WG have sufficient interest and cycles to take that on? My previous discuss text (plus an additional point about images is below. - I think adding some privacy considerations to this would be good, either as new text or via references. Did the WG consider privacy issues? Some that occur to me are: - names, descriptions and identifiers here are all ones that might allow (re)identification in unexpected ways - the UID property in particular probably ought be random and probably ought not be re-used for anything else, some RFC2119 SHOULD statements about that would seem like they'd be good. - doing a refresh against a calendar at the expected frequency could be a good way to re-identify someone - if I can read the expected frequency and some IP address connects (even all over TLS) at about that regularity then I can be reasonably sure that the client is someone subscribed to that address, and maybe use that to track a person's movement across various networks. (That's different from the text in section 7 which assumes that the URL is what's tracked, but the connection can be just as revealing, for some calendars.) I'm not trying to insist all that analysis be documented in this draft but I would hope that the WG have considered the issues and how best to document those and have a plan to do that. (If I'm told such a plan exists and what it is, I'll clear.) This is related to, but a little different from, Kathleen's discuss, depending on the added privacy considerations text which I've not managed to find in the secdir review thread. But this should be as easily cleared I'd guess. And another possible issue now occurs to me: I remember that one social network had an issue where all the avatar image sizes were nearly unique, so that even though those were all accessed over TLS, one could identify users and their buddies by watching those be downloaded. (That depended on how the social network in question made avatar images available, which'll likely be different here.) But there may be a reason to recommend normalising image sizes here as well and to encourage only offering those over https and not http. |
2016-06-29
|
04 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2016-06-29
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] The author has addressed all my DISCUSS points and comments in email. (Thanks!). I've cleared on the assumption the proposed text will make … [Ballot comment] The author has addressed all my DISCUSS points and comments in email. (Thanks!). I've cleared on the assumption the proposed text will make it into a revision. |
2016-06-29
|
04 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ben Campbell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2016-06-29
|
04 | Cyrus Daboo | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-06-29
|
04 | Cyrus Daboo | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-extensions-04.txt |
2016-06-29
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] - I think adding some privacy considerations to this would be good, either as new text or via references. Did the WG consider … [Ballot discuss] - I think adding some privacy considerations to this would be good, either as new text or via references. Did the WG consider privacy issues? Some that occur to me are: - names, descriptions and identifiers here are all ones that might allow (re)identification in unexpected ways - the UID property in particular probably ought be random and probably ought not be re-used for anything else, some RFC2119 SHOULD statements about that would seem like they'd be good. - doing a refresh against a calendar at the expected frequency could be a good way to re-identify someone - if I can read the expected frequency and some IP address connects (even all over TLS) at about that regularity then I can be reasonably sure that the client is someone subscribed to that address, and maybe use that to track a person's movement across various networks. (That's different from the text in section 7 which assumes that the URL is what's tracked, but the connection can be just as revealing, for some calendars.) I'm not trying to insist all that analysis be documented in this draft but I would hope that the WG have considered the issues and how best to document those and have a plan to do that. (If I'm told such a plan exists and what it is, I'll clear.) This is related to, but a little different from, Kathleen's discuss, depending on the added privacy considerations text which I've not managed to find in the secdir review thread. But this should be as easily cleared I'd guess. |
2016-06-29
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-06-28
|
03 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-06-28
|
03 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-06-28
|
03 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] -5.11, description: There's citations for tel, http/https and data url schemes. The "chat" scheme conspicuously lacks a citation. Since you use xmpp in … [Ballot comment] -5.11, description: There's citations for tel, http/https and data url schemes. The "chat" scheme conspicuously lacks a citation. Since you use xmpp in the example, maybe a citation to RFC 5122 (the xmpp: URI) would be in order? Also, would it make sense to mention SIP URIs? -6.1, description: Does “... MUST be used for the default behavior” mean something different than “... MUST be used.”? (The "default" part seems to weaken the MUST.) - 6.4: I'm surprised that this section has no mention of use of the LANGUAGE parameter. I think maybe it should, at least in the example. Or is this just one of those things an iCal person just knows because it applies to any use of text value types? -- In the description: "As a result, clients SHOULD expect to find this property parameter present on many different properties" Why not MUST? Are there reasonable scenarios where a client might choose not to expect that? |
2016-06-28
|
03 | Ben Campbell | Ballot comment text updated for Ben Campbell |
2016-06-28
|
03 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot discuss] These should be easy to fix: - This draft pretty clearly updates RFC 5545. But it isn't marked as doing so. - … [Ballot discuss] These should be easy to fix: - This draft pretty clearly updates RFC 5545. But it isn't marked as doing so. - Sections 8.3 and 8.4 define new registries, but do not state a registration policy. They refer to RFC 5545 section 8.2.6. That section talks about registering new values, but does not appear to talk about new registries. I think it's likely that the registration procedures from 5545 section 8.2.1 actually apply. If so, these sections should cite that. |
2016-06-28
|
03 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] -5.11, description: There's citations for tel, http/https and data url schemes. The "chat" scheme conspicuously lacks a citation. Since you use xmpp in … [Ballot comment] -5.11, description: There's citations for tel, http/https and data url schemes. The "chat" scheme conspicuously lacks a citation. Since you use xmpp in the example, maybe a citation to RFC 5122 (the xmpp: URI) would be in order? Also, would it make sense to mention SIP URIs? -6.1, description: Does “... MUST be used for the default behavior” mean something different than “... MUST be used.”? (The "default" part seems to weaken the MUST. - 6.4: I'm surprised that this section has no mention of use of the LANGUAGE parameter. I think maybe it should, at least in the example. Or is this just one of those things an iCal person just knows because it applies to any use of text value types? -- In the description: "As a result, clients SHOULD expect to find this property parameter present on many different properties" Why not MUST? Are there reasonable scenarios where a client might choose not to expect that? |
2016-06-28
|
03 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-06-28
|
03 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot discuss] This should be really easy to clear... Thank you for addressing the SecDir reviewers comments. I'd like to see the updated text added … [Ballot discuss] This should be really easy to clear... Thank you for addressing the SecDir reviewers comments. I'd like to see the updated text added in the editor's version of the draft that addresses the secdir review. In particular, the email thread just says that text was added to cover possible new threats and I'd like to see that and the new privacy considerations section. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06636.html |
2016-06-28
|
03 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-06-28
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-06-28
|
03 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-06-28
|
03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Dan Romacanu did the OPS DIR review. The RFC5706 does not apply. |
2016-06-28
|
03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-06-27
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-06-25
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-06-23
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2016-06-23
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2016-06-23
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Liang Xia. |
2016-06-23
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-06-23
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot has been issued |
2016-06-23
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-06-23
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-06-23
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-06-22
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2016-06-21
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Telechat date has been changed to 2016-06-30 from 2016-07-07 |
2016-06-21
|
03 | Dan Romascanu | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Dan Romascanu. |
2016-06-16
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-06-16
|
03 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-calext-extensions-03.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-calext-extensions-03.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which IANA must complete. As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. Expert review will need to be completed before your document can be approved for publication as an RFC. First, in the Properties subregistry of the iCalendar Element Registries located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/icalendar/ eleven new iCalendar properties are to be registered as follows: +------------------+---------+--------------------------------------------+ | Property | Status | Reference | +------------------+---------+--------------------------------------------+ | NAME | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.1 | | DESCRIPTION | Current | RFC5545 Section 3.8.1.5, [ RFC-to-be ], | | | | Section 5.2 | | UID | Current | RFC5545 Section 3.8.4.7, [ RFC-to-be ], | | | | Section 5.3 | | LAST-MODIFIED | Current | RFC5545 Section 3.8.7.3, [ RFC-to-be ], | | | | Section 5.4 | | URL | Current | RFC5545 Section 3.8.4.6, [ RFC-to-be ], | | | | Section 5.5 | | CATEGORIES | Current | RFC5545 Section 3.8.1.2, [ RFC-to-be ], | | | | Section 5.6 | | REFRESH-INTERVAL | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.7 | | SOURCE | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.8 | | COLOR | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.9 | | IMAGE | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.10 | | CONFERENCE | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 5.11 | +------------------+---------+--------------------------------------------+ Second, in the Parameters subregistry of the iCalendar Element Registries located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/icalendar/ four new iCalendar parameters are to be registered as follows: +--------------------+---------+----------------------------+ | Property Parameter | Status | Reference | +--------------------+---------+----------------------------+ | DISPLAY | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.1 | | EMAIL | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.2 | | FEATURE | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.3 | | LABEL | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.4 | +--------------------+---------+----------------------------+ Third, a new registry is to be created called the Display Types registry. It will be created in the iCalendar Element Registries located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/icalendar/ The registration procedure for the new registry will be Expert Review with RFC Required as defined by RFC 5226. There are four initial values to be registered in the new subregistry: +--------------+---------+----------------------------+ | Display Type | Status | Reference | +--------------+---------+----------------------------+ | BADGE | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.1 | | GRAPHIC | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.1 | | FULLSIZE | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.1 | | THUMBNAIL | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.1 | +--------------+---------+----------------------------+ Fourth, a new registry is to be created called the Feature Types registry. It will be created in the iCalendar Element Registries located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/icalendar/ The registration procedure for the new registry will be Expert Review with RFC Required as defined by RFC 5226. There are seven initial values to be registered in the new subregistry: +--------------+---------+----------------------------+ | Feature Type | Status | Reference | +--------------+---------+----------------------------+ | AUDIO | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.3 | | CHAT | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.3 | | FEED | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.3 | | MODERATOR | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.3 | | PHONE | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.3 | | SCREEN | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.3 | | VIDEO | Current | [ RFC-to-be ], Section 6.3 | +--------------+---------+----------------------------+ IANA understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2016-06-13
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2016-06-13
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2016-06-09
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2016-06-09
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Dan Romascanu |
2016-06-09
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Liang Xia |
2016-06-09
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Liang Xia |
2016-06-09
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-07-07 |
2016-06-08
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-06-08
|
03 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-calext-extensions@ietf.org, "Philipp Kewisch" , calext-chairs@ietf.org, mozilla@kewis.ch, calsify@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-calext-extensions@ietf.org, "Philipp Kewisch" , calext-chairs@ietf.org, mozilla@kewis.ch, calsify@ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (New Properties for iCalendar) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Calendaring Extensions WG (calext) to consider the following document: - 'New Properties for iCalendar' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-06-22. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document defines a set of new properties for iCalendar data as well as extending the use of some existing properties to the entire iCalendar object. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-extensions/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-extensions/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-06-08
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-06-08
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Last call was requested |
2016-06-08
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-06-08
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-06-08
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD is watching |
2016-06-08
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-06-08
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-06-08
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | Some minor issues raised by the Document Shepherd, but they can be addressed during or after IETF LC. |
2016-06-08
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-06-06
|
03 | Philipp Kewisch | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? A standards track RFC is being requested, specifically a Proposed Standard. This document primarily registers new entities to registries defined by other standards track documents. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. Technical Summary: This document registers various extensions to the calendaring format defined in RFC5545. The extensions have been used by various vendors in an ad-hoc fashion and are now to be standardized using the registry provisions in RFC5545. Working Group Summary: There were no major disagreements on the introduction of these new extensions. For some of the extensions such as IMAGE and COLOR, there was discussion on if the properties fit in well with the iCalendar data model given they are presentation related properties, but keeping them did not lead to objections in the end. Also, the introduction of other extensions such as REFRESH-INTERVAL prompted discussion on if its use promotes good practice, but it was concluded that the properties aptly describe current practice and that advanced mechanisms such as push notifications should be defined in other documents. Document Quality: The extensions defined have been in use by multiple major calendaring vendors, or an intent to make use of the standardized extensions has been expressed. In addition, the document has been reviewed by the experts of the Calendaring and Scheduling Consortium prior to publication as an IETF draft. Consensus has been reached among calendaring experts that the document has no substantive issues. Personnel: The Document Shepard is Philipp Kewisch . (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Shepherd has reviewed the document for quality and for correctness of the proposed IANA registry additions and changes. He believes it is ready for publication by the IESG. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The proposed extensions have been in discussion since 2010 so concerns may come up that the proposed extensions may no longer be as relevant as 6 years ago, but after publication of draft 02 multiple parties have confirmed they have no objection in moving forward. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No special review is required from the Shepherds standpoint. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with the document. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. The author, Cyrus Daboo, has confirmed that all appropriate IPR disclosures have already been filed. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/calsify/current/msg02737.html (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures have been filed referencing this document. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Agreement has been reached among various experts from within the WG. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No extreme discontent has been indicated. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No ID nits have been identified and the ID checklist has not brought up any issues. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such formal review is required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? ll references have been identified as either normative or informative. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? All normative references point towards completed RFC or W3C documents. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no downward normative references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No change is made to the status of existing documents. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA considerations section has been reviewed by the Shepherd. The display type registry defined in section 8.3 and the feature types registry defined in section 8.4. make the impression that a new IANA registry is being created, although they reference an existing registration template defined in RFC5545 section 8.2.6. It is recommended to reword the introduction for these sections to clarify the intent. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. It is unclear if new sub-registries are being created, or if extensions are being made to an existing registry. Please see (17) for details. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. ABNF has been checked using the ABNF parser from tools.ietf.org, properties and parameters registered with rfc5545 have been manually checked by the Document Shepherd. |
2016-06-06
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2016-06-05
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | This version addressed my AD review comments. |
2016-06-05
|
03 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to AD is watching from AD is watching::AD Followup |
2016-06-04
|
03 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2016-06-04
|
03 | Cyrus Daboo | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-extensions-03.txt |
2016-06-03
|
02 | Donald Eastlake | Notification list changed to "Philipp Kewisch" <mozilla@kewis.ch> |
2016-06-03
|
02 | Donald Eastlake | Document shepherd changed to Philipp Kewisch |
2016-06-01
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | Various ABNF errors need to be fixed. |
2016-06-01
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG state changed to AD is watching::Revised I-D Needed from AD is watching |
2016-05-25
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | IESG process started in state AD is watching |
2016-05-25
|
02 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for /doc/draft-daboo-icalendar-extensions/ |
2016-05-24
|
02 | Cyrus Daboo | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-extensions-02.txt |
2016-02-21
|
01 | Donald Eastlake | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2016-02-21
|
01 | Donald Eastlake | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-02-21
|
01 | Donald Eastlake | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2016-02-21
|
01 | Donald Eastlake | Notification list changed to "Amanda Anganes" <aanganes@mitre.org>, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <d3e3e3@gmail.com> from "Amanda Anganes" <aanganes@mitre.org> |
2016-02-21
|
01 | Donald Eastlake | Document shepherd changed to Donald E. Eastlake 3rd |
2016-02-06
|
01 | Donald Eastlake | This document now replaces draft-daboo-icalendar-extensions instead of None |
2016-01-27
|
01 | Donald Eastlake | Notification list changed to "Amanda Anganes" <aanganes@mitre.org> |
2016-01-27
|
01 | Donald Eastlake | Document shepherd changed to Amanda Anganes |
2015-10-08
|
01 | Cyrus Daboo | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-extensions-01.txt |
2015-04-06
|
00 | Cyrus Daboo | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-extensions-00.txt |