JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) for Calendars
draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-22

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document (and the clear Shepherd Writeup).

I subscribe to a whole heap of different calendars, and I'm hoping that this document makes my life / automation better :-)


[Edit: I had filled in the Ballot text box, but forgotten to click to button.... ]

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-20

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Joris Baum for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Title

s/JMAP for Calendars/JMAP for Calendar Synchronisation/ ?

## Abstract

The abstract is very short, should the lack of tasks/journal be mentioned ?

## Section 1.4

A graphic showing the relations between the object would be appreciated by the reader.

## Section 1.4.1

Should `uid` be consistently double-quoted throughout the text ?

## Section 1.5.1

`LocalDateTime` relates to which local time? I.e., client or server time zones ? (I am currently in Europe/Brussels, but my server is probably Europe/London or US/San Francisco)

## Section 3

`This SHOULD be true for exactly one participant identity` what are the consequence of bypassing the "SHOULD" ?

## Section 4

I am not an ART person, so I wonder whether `MUST NOT be greater than 255 octets in size when encoded as UTF-8` also applies for plain ASCII (which is a subset of UTF-8 of course).

Should there be a normative reference to `CSS Color Module` (it does not appear in my HTML rendering).

## Section 5.8

`the server MUST set the following properties to an appropriate value` should the 'appropriate value' be specified in the document ?

## Section 5.10

Is there any constraint (e.g., local/global uniqueness) on "id" in `a separate id will be returned for each instance` ?

## Section 5.10.1

In `Text should be matched in a case-insensitive manner` should it also be i18n sensitive (e.g., "eric" and "éric" being the same) ?

## Section 9.2

The comma before "DKIM" should probably be removed in `When receiving events via email, DKIM [RFC6376] and S/MIME`

## Section 9.3

While title DoS, it is not really about a DoS attack but more about "operational considerations", i.e., suggest move this section outside of section 9 into a new "operational considerations" section.

# NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

## Section 2.2

Suggest to use the same typography for the errors as the rest (i.e., in bold on my rendering)

## Section 5.8.1

Perhaps using a more recent date than `2018-01-08T09:00:00`? :-)

## Section 8.3

What about using aasvg for the "snooze alarm" ?

[Ballot discuss]
** Section 4
      The color SHOULD have sufficient contrast to be used as text on a
      white background.

What measure is used for “sufficiency”?  How does one know they have “sufficiency”?

Please see related comment below.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Roni Even for the GENART review.

** Section 3.1
  *  *isDefault*: Boolean (server-set)

      This SHOULD be true for exactly one participant identity in any
      account, and MUST NOT be true for more than one participant
      identity within an account.

I’m trying to reconcile the two clauses in this statement.  Being true for more than one participant is strictly prohibited.  Are the options then false or true for exactly one participant?

Section 4 has similar language.

** Section 4.
    If not null, the value MUST be a case-insensitive color name taken
      from the set of names defined in Section 4.3 of CSS Color Module
      Level 3 COLORS (https://www.w3.org/TR/css-color-3/)

Why is this W3C specification not a normative reference?

** Section 4
      The color SHOULD have sufficient contrast to be used as text on a
      white background.

Since “SHOULD” is used instead of MUST, under what circumstances would insufficient contrast be used?

** Section 4.
      The value MUST be a time zone id
      from the IANA Time Zone Database TZDB (https://www.iana.org/time-
      zones). 

Why is the Time Zone Database not a normative reference?

** Section 4.

      Clients SHOULD use this as the default
      for new events in this calendar if set.

When would client NOT use this as the default?

** Section 4.3
      It SHOULD NOT create CalendarEventNotification
      objects - a calendar with a large number of events would create an
      overwhelming number of CalendarEventNotifications.

When is it acceptable to ignore this guidance and create an overwhelming number of CalendarEventNotifications?

** Section 9.4
  Invitations received from an untrusted source may be spam.  If this
  is added to the user's calendar automatically it can be very
  obtrusive,

Isn’t it possible to be worse than obtrusive?  Couldn’t it have security implications?  For example, couldn’t an attacker conduct a phishing attack -- including a link in the calendar invite which looks familiar and having a user click on it?

** Section 10.*  Consider more clearly stating the registry in question for action:

Exemplar OLD
IANA will register the "CalendarEvent" JMAP Data Type

NEW
IANA will register "CalendarEvent" in the JMAP Data Type registry

** idnits reports:
  == Unused Reference: 'RFC8792' is defined on line 2881, but no explicit
    reference was found in the text

[Ballot comment]
One small comment:

Section 9.1, last sentence:  Because RFC8620 has a MUST for transport security (TLS 1.2 or better), this can also be a MUST.

I agree with Warren, I hope calendar management across platforms becomes easier!!!

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document (and the clear Shepherd Writeup).

I subscribe to a whole bunch of different calendars, and I'm hoping that this document makes my life better :-)

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-19. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are five actions which we must complete.

First, in the JMAP Capabilities registry in the JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jmap/

two new capabilities will be registered as follows:

Capability Name: urn:ietf:params:jmap:calendars
Intended use: common
Change Controller: IETF
Security and Privacy Considerations: [ RFC-to-be; Section 1.5.1 ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Capability Name: urn:ietf:params:jmap:principals:availability
Intended use: common
Change Controller: IETF
Security and Privacy Considerations: [ RFC-to-be; Section 1.5.2 ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Second, in the JMAP Data Types registry, also in the JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jmap/

four new capabilities will be registered as follows:

Type Name: Calendar
Can Reference Blobs: no
Can Use for State Change: yes
Capability: urn:ietf:params:jmap:calendars
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type Name: CalendarEvent
Can Reference Blobs: yes
Can Use for State Change: yes
Capability: urn:ietf:params:jmap:calendars
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type Name: CalendarEventNotification
Can Reference Blobs: no
Can Use for State Change: yes
Capability: urn:ietf:params:jmap:calendars
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Type Name: ParticipantIdentity
Can Reference Blobs: no
Can Use for State Change: yes
Capability: urn:ietf:params:jmap:calendars
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

Third, in the JMAP Error Codes registry also in the JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jmap/

three new error codes will be registered as follows:

JMAP Error Code: calendarHasEvent
Intended Use: common
Change Controller: IETF
Description: The Calendar has at least one CalendarEvent assigned to it, and the "onDestroyRemoveEvents" argument was false.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 4.3 ]

JMAP Error Code: noSupportedScheduleMethods
Intended Use: common
Change Controller: IETF
Description: The server was requested to send scheduling messages, but does not support any of the methods available for at least one of the recipients.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.8 ]

JMAP Error Code: cannotCalculateOccurrences
Intended Use: common
Change Controller: IETF
Description: The server cannot expand a recurrence required to return the results for the requested query.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.10 ]

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have initiated the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Fourth, in the JSCalendar Properties registry in the JSCalendar registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jscalendar/

IANA will update the "JSCalendar Properties" registry, originally created in Section 8.2 of [RFC8984], to add a new column called "Is Per-User". The value in this column for each entry MUST be either "yes" or "no", indicating whether each user with whom the object is shared should be able to set their own value for this property without affecting the value for other users.

For existing registrations, IANA will set this new column to "yes" for the following, five property registrations:

keywords
color
freeBusyStatus
useDefaultAlerts
alerts

For all other existing registrations IANA will set this new column to "no".

Fifth, also in the JSCalendar Properties registry in the JSCalendar registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jscalendar/

eleven new JSCalendar properties will be registered as follows:

Property Name: id
Property Type: Not applicable
Property Context: Event, Task
Is Per-User: no
Reference/Description: [ RFC-to-be ]
Intended Usage: Reserved
Change Controller: IETF

Property Name: baseEventId
Property Type: Not applicable
Property Context: Event, Task
Is Per-User: no
Reference/Description: [ RFC-to-be ]
Intended Usage: Reserved
Change Controller: IETF

Property Name: calendarIds
Property Type: Not Applicable
Property Context: Event, Task
Is Per-User: no
Reference/Description: [ RFC-to-be ]
Intended Usage: Reserved
Change Controller: IETF

Property Name: isDraft
Property Type: Not applicable
Property Context: Event, Task
Is Per-User: no
Reference/Description: [ RFC-to-be ]
Intended Usage: Reserved
Change Controller: IETF

Property Name: isOrigin
Property Type: Not applicable
Property Context: Event, Task
Is Per-User: no
Reference/Description: [ RFC-to-be ]
Intended Usage: Reserved
Change Controller: IETF

Property Name: utcStart
Property Type: Not applicable
Property Context: Event, Task
Is Per-User: no
Reference/Description: [ RFC-to-be ]
Intended Usage: Reserved
Change Controller: IETF

Property Name: utcEnd
Property Type: Not applicable
Property Context: Event, Task
Is Per-User: no
Reference/Description: [ RFC-to-be ]
Intended Usage: Reserved
Change Controller: IETF

Property Name: calendarAddress
Property Type: String
Property Context: Participant
Is Per-User: no
Reference/Description: [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.1.1 ]
Intended Usage: common
Change Controller: IETF

Property Name: mayInviteSelf
Property Type: Boolean (default: false)
Property Context: Event, Task
Is Per-User: no
Reference/Description: [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.1.2 ]
Intended Usage: Reserved
Change Controller: IETF

Property Name: mayInviteOthers
Property Type: Boolean (default: false)
Property Context: Event, Task
Is Per-User: no
Reference/Description: [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.1.3 ]
Intended Usage: common
Change Controller: IETF

Property Name: hideAttendees
Property Type: Boolean (default: false)
Property Context: Event, Task
Is Per-User: no
Reference/Description: [ RFC-to-be; Section 5.1.4 ]
Intended Usage: common
Change Controller: IETF

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have completed the required Expert Review via a separate request.

We understand that these five actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this revised 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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-06-27):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-jmap-calendars@ietf.org, jmap-chairs@ietf.org, jmap@ietf.org, joris@audriga.com, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (JMAP for Calendars) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the JSON Mail Access Protocol WG (jmap)
to consider the following document: - 'JMAP for Calendars'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-06-27. 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 specifies a data model for synchronizing calendar data
  with a server using JMAP.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jmap-calendars/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# 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?

There is strong consensus regarding the specified calendar access and sync
definitions. Since last IETF there is now also consensus regarding the
scheduling definitions.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There has been controversy about the proposed solution for achieving scheduling
regarding its interoperability with existing calendar scheduling protocols.
This has been resolved since last IETF by introducing a new property called
"calendarUserAddress" to resolve interoperability concerns with legacy calendaring
formats like iCalendar [RFC5545][18]. A related draft is
[draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar][19] which defines how to convert between
iCalendar and JSCalendar.

Additionally, Discussion about Calendar role deviating from JMAP Mail was a bit controversial
and consensus a bit rough, but there was consensus.

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)?

This is believed to have been implemented in Fastmail, and others have
expressed interest. Audriga also has implemented parts of the JMAP Calendars
specification. Test implementations have been written by other JMAP server
authors.

## 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.

Primary interaction is with calext, which has considerable membership overlap
with jmap in addition to having been notified on the mailing list about this
document. Additionally, it interacts with the technologies typically developed
within the CalConnect organization. CalConnect also has considerable membership
overlap and members have reviewed the draft.

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.

This document does not meet any formal expert review criteria.

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.

Running through `jq` reports no errors.

## 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?

This document is needed, clearly written, correctly designed and complete.

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?

Going through the list:

  * Date and Times have been reviewed and discussed multiple times.
  * iCalendar and jCal are closely related and review has happened in calext.

There are no further issues that I can see.

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?

Proposed Standard, as it extends a proposed standard. Datatracker reflects that.

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.

Yes, the authors have been asked, 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.)

idnits reports that there are non-ascii characters.

It does not contain the section "Implementation Status" as defined in
Content Guidelines' "recommended content". This is likely fine.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References are believed by the shepherd to be correctly categorized.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All references are freely available.

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?

draft-ietf-jmap-sharing has been submitted to the IESG for Publication.

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 RFCs will be changed.

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]).

IANA considerations are consistent with the document.
Reservations have not yet been made for new registry entries.

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.

No new IANA 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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/
[18]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5545
[19]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar/

# 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?

There is strong consensus regarding the specified calendar access and sync
definitions. Since last IETF there is now also consensus regarding the
scheduling definitions.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There has been controversy about the proposed solution for achieving scheduling
regarding its interoperability with existing calendar scheduling protocols.
This has been resolved since last IETF by introducing a new property called
"calendarUserAddress" to resolve interoperability concerns with legacy calendaring
formats like iCalendar [RFC5545][18]. A related draft is
[draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar][19] which defines how to convert between
iCalendar and JSCalendar.

Additionally, Discussion about Calendar role deviating from JMAP Mail was a bit controversial
and consensus a bit rough, but there was consensus.

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)?

This is believed to have been implemented in Fastmail, and others have
expressed interest. Audriga also has implemented parts of the JMAP Calendars
specification. Test implementations have been written by other JMAP server
authors.

## 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.

Primary interaction is with calext, which has considerable membership overlap
with jmap in addition to having been notified on the mailing list about this
document. Additionally, it interacts with the technologies typically developed
within the CalConnect organization. CalConnect also has considerable membership
overlap and members have reviewed the draft.

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.

This document does not meet any formal expert review criteria.

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.

Running through `jq` reports no errors.

## 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?

This document is needed, clearly written, correctly designed and complete.

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?

Going through the list:

  * Date and Times have been reviewed and discussed multiple times.
  * iCalendar and jCal are closely related and review has happened in calext.

There are no further issues that I can see.

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?

Proposed Standard, as it extends a proposed standard. Datatracker reflects that.

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.

Yes, the authors have been asked, 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.)

idnits reports that there are non-ascii characters.

It does not contain the section "Implementation Status" as defined in
Content Guidelines' "recommended content". This is likely fine.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References are believed by the shepherd to be correctly categorized.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All references are freely available.

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?

draft-ietf-jmap-sharing has been submitted to the IESG for Publication.

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 RFCs will be changed.

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]).

IANA considerations are consistent with the document.
Reservations have not yet been made for new registry entries.

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.

No new IANA 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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/
[18]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5545
[19]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar/

# 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?

There is strong consensus regarding the specified calendar access and sync
definitions. However, there is no consensus regarding the way scheduling shall
be achieved via JMAP Calendars.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There is controversy about the proposed solution for achieving scheduling
regarding its interoperability with existing calendar scheduling protocols.
The main criticism was that it is yet unclear if scheduleId, which is defined by
this spec, will be useful for interoperable scheduling with legacy calendaring
formats like iCalendar [RFC5545][18]. More details might be necessary (currently
being worked on in [draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar][19]) to demonstrate
interoperability a between scheduling as supported by iCalendar and scheduling
as supported by JSCalendar.

Additionally, Discussion about Calendar role deviating from JMAP Mail was a bit controversial
and consensus a bit rough, but there was consensus.

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)?

This is believed to have been implemented in Fastmail, and others have
expressed interest. Audriga also has implemented parts of the JMAP Calendars
specification. Test implementations have been written by other JMAP server
authors.

## 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.

Primary interaction is with calext, which has considerable membership overlap
with jmap in addition to having been notified on the mailing list about this
document. Additionally, it interacts with the technologies typically developed
within the CalConnect organization. CalConnect also has considerable membership
overlap and members have reviewed the draft.

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.

This document does not meet any formal expert review criteria.

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.

Running through `jq` reported the following errors (see filename to identify example):

```
$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure1.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 31, column 13

$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F
must be escaped at line 6, column 69

$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure4.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F
must be escaped at line 6, column 69

$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure5.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F
must be escaped at line 6, column 48

$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure6.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 9, column 46

$ cat /tmp/section_8_1_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 8, column 18

$ cat /tmp/section_8_2_figure1.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 19, column 24

$ cat /tmp/section_8_2_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid numeric literal at line 14, column 23

$ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid literal at line 5, column 44

$ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure3.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected another key-value pair at line 8, column 8

$ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure5.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F
must be escaped at line 7, column 30

$ cat /tmp/section_8_4_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected another key-value pair at line 7, column 7
```


## 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?

This document is needed, clearly written and correctly designed. However,
scheduling may be underspecified as multiple individuals have raised concerns
regarding this at the JMAP mailing list as well as within CalConnect.
In my opinion the specification would either benefit from a separate
scheduling section and providing more details on `ParticipantIdentity.sendTo` or
from moving scheduling out of the specification.

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?

Going through the list:

  * Date and Times have been reviewed and discussed multiple times.
  * iCalendar and jCal are closely related and review has happened in calext.

There are no further issues that I can see.

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?

Proposed Standard, as it extends a proposed standard. Datatracker reflects that.

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.

Yes, the authors have been asked, 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. Neil is willing to be listed. Mike Douglas hat yet to confirm him being
listed as author.

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.)

idnits reports that there are non-ascii characters.

It does not contain the section as defined in "recommended content" which is
likely fine.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References are believed by the shepherd to be correctly categorized.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All references are freely available.

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?

draft-ietf-jmap-sharing has been submitted to the IESG for Publication.

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 RFCs will be changed.

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]).

IANA considerations are consistent with the document.
Reservations have not yet been made for new registry entries.

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.

No new IANA 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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/
[18]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5545
[19]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar/

# 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?

There is strong consensus regarding the specified calendar access and sync
definitions. However, there is no consensus regarding the way scheduling shall
be achieved via JMAP Calendars.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There is controversy about the proposed solution for achieving scheduling
regarding its interoperability with existing calendar scheduling protocols.
The main criticism was that it is yet unclear if scheduleId, which is defined by
this spec, will be useful for interoperable scheduling with legacy calendaring
formats like iCalendar [RFC5545][18]. More details might be necessary (currently
being worked on in [draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar][19]) to demonstrate
interoperability a between scheduling as supported by iCalendar and scheduling
as supported by JSCalendar.

Additionally, Discussion about Calendar role deviating from JMAP Mail was a bit controversial
and consensus a bit rough, but there was consensus.

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)?

This is believed to have been implemented in Fastmail, and others have
expressed interest. Audriga also has implemented parts of the JMAP Calendars
specification. Test implementations have been written by other JMAP server
authors.

## 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.

Primary interaction is with calext, which has considerable membership overlap
with jmap in addition to having been notified on the mailing list about this
document. Additionally, it interacts with the technologies typically developed
within the CalConnect organization. CalConnect also has considerable membership
overlap and members have reviewed the draft.

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.

This document does not meet any formal expert review criteria.

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.

Running through `jq` reported the following errors (see filename to identify example):

```
$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure1.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 31, column 13
$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 69
$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure4.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 69
$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure5.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 48
$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure6.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 9, column 46
$ cat /tmp/section_8_1_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 8, column 18
$ cat /tmp/section_8_2_figure1.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 19, column 24
$ cat /tmp/section_8_2_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid numeric literal at line 14, column 23
$ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid literal at line 5, column 44
$ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure3.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected another key-value pair at line 8, column 8
$ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure5.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 7, column 30
$ cat /tmp/section_8_4_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected another key-value pair at line 7, column 7
```

## 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?

This document is needed, clearly written and correctly designed. However,
scheduling may be underspecified as multiple individuals have raised concerns
regarding this at the JMAP mailing list as well as within CalConnect.
In my opinion the specification would either benefit from a separate
scheduling section and providing more details on `ParticipantIdentity.sendTo` or
from moving scheduling out of the specification.

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?

Going through the list:

  * Date and Times have been reviewed and discussed multiple times.
  * iCalendar and jCal are closely related and review has happened in calext.

There are no further issues that I can see.

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?

Proposed Standard, as it extends a proposed standard. Datatracker reflects that.

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.

Yes, the authors have been asked, 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. Neil is willing to be listed. Mike Douglas hat yet to confirm him being
listed as author.

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.)

idnits reports that there are non-ascii characters.

It does not contain the section as defined in "recommended content" which is
likely fine.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References are believed by the shepherd to be correctly categorized.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All references are freely available.

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?

draft-ietf-jmap-sharing has been submitted to the IESG for Publication.

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 RFCs will be changed.

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]).

IANA considerations are consistent with the document.
Reservations have not yet been made for new registry entries.

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.

No new IANA 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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/
[18]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5545
[19]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar/

# 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?

There is strong consensus regarding the specified calendar access and sync
definitions. However, there is no consensus regarding the way scheduling shall
be achieved via JMAP Calendars.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There is controversy about the proposed solution for achieving scheduling
regarding its interoperability with existing calendar scheduling protocols.
The main criticism was that it is yet unclear if scheduleId, which is defined by
this spec, will be useful for interoperable scheduling with legacy calendaring
formats like iCalendar [RFC5545][18]. More details might be necessary (currently
being worked on in [draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar][19]) to demonstrate
interoperability a between scheduling as supported by iCalendar and scheduling
as supported by JSCalendar.

Additionally, Discussion about Calendar role deviating from JMAP Mail was a bit controversial
and consensus a bit rough, but there was consensus.

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)?

This is believed to have been implemented in Fastmail, and others have
expressed interest. Audriga also has implemented parts of the JMAP Calendars
specification. Test implementations have been written by other JMAP server
authors.

## 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.

Primary interaction is with calext, which has considerable membership overlap
with jmap in addition to having been notified on the mailing list about this
document. Additionally, it interacts with the technologies typically developed
within the CalConnect organization. CalConnect also has considerable membership
overlap and members have reviewed the draft.

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.

This document does not meet any formal expert review criteria.

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.

Running through `jq` reported the following errors (see filename to identify example):

```
$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure1.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 31, column 13
$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 69
$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure4.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 69
$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure5.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 48
$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure6.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 9, column 46
$ cat /tmp/section_8_1_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 8, column 18
$ cat /tmp/section_8_2_figure1.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 19, column 24
$ cat /tmp/section_8_2_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid numeric literal at line 14, column 23
$ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid literal at line 5, column 44
$ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure3.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected another key-value pair at line 8, column 8
$ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure5.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 7, column 30
$ cat /tmp/section_8_4_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected another key-value pair at line 7, column 7
```

## 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?

This document is needed, clearly written and correctly designed. However,
scheduling may be underspecified as multiple individuals have raised concerns
regarding this at the JMAP mailing list as well as within CalConnect.
In my opinion the specification would either benefit from a separate
scheduling section and providing more details on `ParticipantIdentity.sendTo` or
from moving scheduling out of the specification.

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?

Going through the list:

  * Date and Times have been reviewed and discussed multiple times.
  * iCalendar and jCal are closely related and review has happened in calext.

There are no further issues that I can see.

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?

Proposed Standard, as it extends a proposed standard. Datatracker reflects that.

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.

Yes, the authors have been asked, 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. Neil is willing to be listed. However, Mike Douglas considers not being listed.

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.)

idnits reports that there are non-ascii characters.

It does not contain the section as defined in "recommended content" which is
likely fine.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References are believed by the shepherd to be correctly categorized.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All references are freely available.

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?

draft-ietf-jmap-sharing has been submitted to the IESG for Publication.

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 RFCs will be changed.

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]).

IANA considerations are consistent with the document.
Reservations have not yet been made for new registry entries.

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.

No new IANA 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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/
[18]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5545
[19]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar/

# 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?

There is strong consensus regarding the specified calendar access and sync
definitions. However, there is no consensus regarding the way scheduling shall
be achieved via JMAP Calendars.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There is controversy about the proposed solution for achieving scheduling
regarding its interoperability with existing calendar scheduling protocols.
The main criticism was that it is yet unclear if scheduleId, which is defined by
this spec, will be useful for interoperable scheduling with legacy calendaring
formats like iCalendar [RFC5545][18]. More details might be necessary (currently
being worked on in [draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar][19]) to demonstrate
interoperability a between scheduling as supported by iCalendar and scheduling
as supported by JSCalendar.

Additionally, Discussion about Calendar role deviating from JMAP Mail was a bit controversial
and consensus a bit rough, but there was consensus.

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)?

This is believed to have been implemented in Fastmail, and others have
expressed interest. Audriga also has implemented parts of the JMAP Calendars
specification. Test implementations have been written by other JMAP server
authors.

## 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.

Primary interaction is with calext, which has considerable membership overlap
with jmap in addition to having been notified on the mailing list about this
document. Additionally, it interacts with the technologies typically developed
within the CalConnect organization. CalConnect also has considerable membership
overlap and members have reviewed the draft.

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.

This document does not meet any formal expert review criteria.

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.

Running through `jq` reported the following errors (see filename to identify example):

```
$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure1.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 31, column 13
$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 69
$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure4.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 69
$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure5.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 6, column 48
$ cat /tmp/section_5_8_1_figure6.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 9, column 46
$ cat /tmp/section_8_1_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 8, column 18
$ cat /tmp/section_8_2_figure1.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected separator between values at line 19, column 24
$ cat /tmp/section_8_2_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid numeric literal at line 14, column 23
$ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid literal at line 5, column 44
$ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure3.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected another key-value pair at line 8, column 8
$ cat /tmp/section_8_3_figure5.json | jq
jq: parse error: Invalid string: control characters from U+0000 through U+001F must be escaped at line 7, column 30
$ cat /tmp/section_8_4_figure2.json | jq
jq: parse error: Expected another key-value pair at line 7, column 7
```

## 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?

This document is needed, clearly written and correctly designed. However,
scheduling may be underspecified as multiple individuals have raised concerns
regarding this at the JMAP mailing list as well as within CalConnect.
In my opinion the specification would either benefit from a separate
scheduling section and providing more details on `ParticipantIdentity.sendTo` or
from moving scheduling out of the specification.

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?

Going through the list:

  * Date and Times have been reviewed and discussed multiple times.
  * iCalendar and jCal are closely related and review has happened in calext.

There are no further issues that I can see.

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?

Proposed Standard, as it extends a proposed standard. Datatracker reflects that.

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.

Yes, the authors have been asked, 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. Both authors are willing to be listed.

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.)

idnits reports that there are non-ascii characters.

It does not contain the section as defined in "recommended content" which is
likely fine.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

References are believed by the shepherd to be correctly categorized.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All references are freely available.

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?

draft-ietf-jmap-sharing has been submitted to the IESG for Publication.

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 RFCs will be changed.

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]).

IANA considerations are consistent with the document.
Reservations have not yet been made for new registry entries.

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.

No new IANA 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://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/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/
[18]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5545
[19]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-icalendar/