Calendar Access Protocol (CAP)
draft-royer-calsch-cap-03

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) Yes

(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) No Objection

(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) No Objection

I think the community would benefit, given there's to be a revision, from a brief statement of
why this is experimental rather than standards track - to get implementation experience?

(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection

top of page 26
      values are not case sensitive (e.g., "fanfeedback@redsox.com" is
      the same as "FANFEEDBACK@REDSOX.COM").
should that be fanfeedback@resdsocks.example.com or some such?

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

(Harald Alvestrand; former steering group member) No Objection

Reviewed by Joel Halpern, Gen-ART

His re-review of -01:

This draft is basically ready for publication as an Experimental RFC,
but has items that should be fixed before publication.

Yes, that is the same state I assigned the previous draft.  The one
moderate comment (included here) has not in my opinion been adequately
addressed.  The comment is:

moderate:
    UID is used without including a definition.  I had assumed "User
    ID", but then I got to the example in 3.3.1 where the command
    requests the server to return 10 UIDs, and I concluded that I had
    misunderstood.  There was also some earlier text that did not make
    sense about numbers of booked objects for a UID, but probably is
    fine once one knows what a UID is.

The revision attempts to address this by adding a parenthetical at the
first use of UID which reads "(UID is defined in [iCAL])".  This
leaves the reader still unable to determine what the heck a UID is
from reading this document.  All I am asking for is a simple
definition in the list of terms.  It is fine for it to say after the
definition "for more details see [iCAL]".

(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

  Please delete the second paragraph of the Abstract prior to publication
  as an RFC.

(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

There are a few examples that use domain names not listed in RFC 2606, such as "redsox.com" (section 4.1.1), "foo.com" (section 4.3), "host.com" (section 6.1.1.3.2).

(Steven Bellovin; former steering group member) No Objection

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Abstain

This is a somewhat existential abstain: if you ask for fixed ABNF and give specific examples, and get back a document that has similar specific problems, did you make a sound?