Calendar subscription upgrades
draft-ietf-calext-subscription-upgrade-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2024-03-20
|
09 | Jenny Bui | Shepherding AD changed to Orie Steele |
2024-02-22
|
09 | Francesca Palombini | Back to the working group to deal with a remaining WGLC review. |
2024-02-22
|
09 | Francesca Palombini | IESG state changed to I-D Exists from Publication Requested |
2024-02-22
|
09 | Bron Gondwana | Sorry, had a very late review come in an have had to pull it back from publication request! I pushed go too soon. |
2024-02-22
|
09 | Bron Gondwana | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2024-02-22
|
09 | Bron Gondwana | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2024-02-20
|
09 | Bron Gondwana | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? The group is quite small, however this was a strong consensus of those present. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No controversy with this document. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? There are only test implementations of this spec. It's expected that it will be picked up once standardised, as it can be added separately to clients and servers and will provide an upgraded experience if both support it. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. There's no other review required. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. There are no formal reviews required. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? No YANG. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. ABNF was checked with the tools.ietf.org validator. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? It appears complete and understandable. The language is a little loose in places but can be followed by somebody experienced in the standards it builds on top of. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? This isn't needed. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? It's proposed standard and extends an existing one. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. The author has confirmed no known IPR. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) There's some whitespace complaints in the IANA section but it looks fine, they are just alignment spaces for a table. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No, the references seem fine. Everything is Normative, and is needed to be able to implement this document. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? No, all references are IETF documents. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The IANA considerations only updates existing registries, and appears to completely define evrything needed. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. There are no new registries [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2024-02-20
|
09 | Bron Gondwana | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2024-02-20
|
09 | Bron Gondwana | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2024-02-20
|
09 | (System) | Changed action holders to Francesca Palombini (IESG state changed) |
2024-02-20
|
09 | Bron Gondwana | Responsible AD changed to Francesca Palombini |
2024-02-20
|
09 | Bron Gondwana | Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested |
2024-02-20
|
09 | Bron Gondwana | Document shepherd changed to Bron Gondwana |
2024-02-15
|
09 | Michael Douglass | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-subscription-upgrade-09.txt |
2024-02-15
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2024-02-15
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass |
2024-02-15
|
09 | Michael Douglass | Uploaded new revision |
2024-01-03
|
08 | Bron Gondwana | Notification list changed to brong@fastmailteam.com, murch@fastmailteam.com from brong@fastmailteam.com because the document shepherd was set |
2024-01-03
|
08 | Bron Gondwana | Document shepherd changed to Kenneth Murchison |
2023-11-07
|
08 | Bron Gondwana | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call |
2023-08-23
|
08 | (System) | Document has expired |
2023-02-19
|
08 | Michael Douglass | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-subscription-upgrade-08.txt |
2023-02-19
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2023-02-19
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass |
2023-02-19
|
08 | Michael Douglass | Uploaded new revision |
2022-11-10
|
07 | Bron Gondwana | # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the … # Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents *This version is dated 4 July 2022.* Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors and editors to complete these checks. Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure to answer all of them. ## Document History 1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement? The group is quite small, however this was a strong consensus of those present. 2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? No controversy with this document. 3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize 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. 4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere, either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere (where)? There are only test implementations of this spec. It's expected that it will be picked up once standardised, as it can be added separately to clients and servers and will provide an upgraded experience if both support it. ## Additional Reviews 5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which reviews took place. There's no other review required. 6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. There are no formal reviews required. 7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in [RFC 8342][5]? No YANG. 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc. ABNF was checked with the tools.ietf.org validator. ## Document Shepherd Checks 9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? It appears complete and understandable. The language is a little loose in places but can be followed by somebody experienced in the standards it builds on top of. 10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent reviews? This isn't needed. 11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13], [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent? It's proposed standard and extends an existing one. 12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links to publicly-available messages when applicable. The author has confirmed no known IPR. 13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page is greater than five, please provide a justification. Yes. 14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.) There's some whitespace complaints in the IANA section but it looks fine, they are just alignment spaces for a table. 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. No, the references seem fine. Everything is Normative, and is needed to be able to implement this document. 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? No, all references are IETF documents. 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. No. 18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state? If so, what is the plan for their completion? No. 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. No. 20. 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 aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents, allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]). The IANA considerations only updates existing registries, and appears to completely define evrything needed. 21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear? Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate. There are no new registries [1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/ [2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html [3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html [4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools [5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html [6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics [7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79 [8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ [9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html [10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97 [11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html [12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5 [13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1 [14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2 [15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview [16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ [17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ |
2022-11-08
|
07 | Bron Gondwana | Added to session: IETF-115: calext Tue-1630 |
2022-10-24
|
07 | Bron Gondwana | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2022-10-24
|
07 | Bron Gondwana | Notification list changed to brong@fastmailteam.com because the document shepherd was set |
2022-10-24
|
07 | Bron Gondwana | Document shepherd changed to Bron Gondwana |
2022-10-21
|
07 | Michael Douglass | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-subscription-upgrade-07.txt |
2022-10-21
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-10-21
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass |
2022-10-21
|
07 | Michael Douglass | Uploaded new revision |
2022-09-23
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2022-03-22
|
06 | Michael Douglass | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-subscription-upgrade-06.txt |
2022-03-22
|
06 | (System) | New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Michael Douglass) |
2022-03-22
|
06 | Michael Douglass | Uploaded new revision |
2022-03-05
|
05 | Michael Douglass | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-subscription-upgrade-05.txt |
2022-03-05
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2022-03-05
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass |
2022-03-05
|
05 | Michael Douglass | Uploaded new revision |
2022-01-27
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
2021-07-26
|
04 | Michael Douglass | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-subscription-upgrade-04.txt |
2021-07-26
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-07-26
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass |
2021-07-26
|
04 | Michael Douglass | Uploaded new revision |
2021-04-14
|
03 | Bron Gondwana | Added to session: interim-2021-calext-01 |
2021-04-14
|
03 | Bron Gondwana | Added to session: interim-2021-jmap-01 |
2021-03-01
|
03 | Bron Gondwana | Added to session: IETF-110: calext Wed-1530 |
2021-02-01
|
03 | Michael Douglass | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-subscription-upgrade-03.txt |
2021-02-01
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2021-02-01
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass |
2021-02-01
|
03 | Michael Douglass | Uploaded new revision |
2021-01-30
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2020-07-29
|
02 | Michael Douglass | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-subscription-upgrade-02.txt |
2020-07-29
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-07-29
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: calext-chairs@ietf.org, Michael Douglass |
2020-07-29
|
02 | Michael Douglass | Uploaded new revision |
2020-05-06
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2019-11-21
|
01 | Bron Gondwana | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-11-21
|
01 | Bron Gondwana | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2019-11-21
|
01 | Bron Gondwana | This document now replaces draft-douglass-subscription-upgrade instead of None |
2019-11-03
|
01 | Michael Douglass | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-subscription-upgrade-01.txt |
2019-11-03
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-11-03
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Michael Douglass |
2019-11-03
|
01 | Michael Douglass | Uploaded new revision |
2019-06-07
|
00 | Michael Douglass | New version available: draft-ietf-calext-subscription-upgrade-00.txt |
2019-06-07
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2019-06-07
|
00 | Michael Douglass | Set submitter to "Michael Douglass ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: calext-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-06-07
|
00 | Michael Douglass | Uploaded new revision |