Last Call Review of draft-ietf-calext-eventpub-extensions-12
review-ietf-calext-eventpub-extensions-12-secdir-lc-salz-2019-04-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-calext-eventpub-extensions
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 13)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2019-04-29
Requested 2019-04-15
Draft last updated 2019-04-22
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -12 by Rich Salz (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -12 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Rich Salz
State Completed
Review review-ietf-calext-eventpub-extensions-12-secdir-lc-salz-2019-04-22
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 13)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2019-04-22

Review
review-ietf-calext-eventpub-extensions-12-secdir-lc-salz-2019-04-22

This is the SECDIR last-call review, intended to be input to the Security AD's.

Ready with nits.

The Security Considerations and Privacy Considerations are short, but they seem to reasonably refer to already-published documents.

Following are nits I noticed.

Abstract "a number of new iCalendar properties and components" -> "a new iCalendar component and a number of properties"  Maybe stike "iCalendar"

Sec 1, STRUCTURED-DATA. In my opinion the confirmation code would be the most useful new info :)

Sec 1, SOURCE Is it redefined or extended?

Sec 2, para 2.  "In a break with this 'tradition' ..." --> "Breaking with this practice, ..."

Sec 3, "When a calendar client receives a calendar component" Should the second calendar be CALENDAR? Should the first be "iCalendar"?

Sec 3.1.1, uppercase "vcard"?

Sec 3.1.2.1 "non of which" --> "none of which"

Sec 4 Perhaps add a sentence saying where this syntax is defined. Is this the complete iCalendar spec or is it just changing a few things?

Sec 5.1, etc "as laid down in" Is kind of informal wording.

Sec 6, the notation has "value=URI" but the example has "URL" (Sec 7.3, etc., uses URI in both parts)

Sec 10, "applications using" Is "acting on" better?