Last Call Review of draft-ietf-calext-ical-relations-08
review-ietf-calext-ical-relations-08-genart-lc-holmberg-2021-10-31-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-calext-ical-relations-08
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2021-10-31
IETF LC End Date: 2021-10-28
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: I have no technical issues with the draft, and the text is quite easy
to understand also for someone not familiar with the topic. However, I do have
some editorial comments (specific and general) that I would like the authors to
address.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues: N/A

Nits/editorial comments:

Q1:

Please make sure that there are references on first occurrence.

For example, the first sentence of Section 1:

"iCalendar entities often..."

...should have a reference to RFC 5545.

In addition, I don't think we use references in the Abstract

---

Q2:

The Abstract says:

"This specification updates RELATED-TO defined in..."

I think it would be good to add a few words on HOW RELATED-TO is updated.

Also, please say "RELATED-TO property".

---

Q3:

Related to Q2, in Section 9 you say that you redefining RELATED-TO. I think
redefine and update are two separate things, so please clarify.

And, while Section 1.1 does explain how RELATED-TO is updated/redefined, it
would probably be good to have some text in Section 9 too. For example, if I
understand correctly you are updating Section 3.8.4.5. of RFC 5545. That should
be mentioned.

I would also consider changing the name of Section 9 to "Updates to RFC 5545",
and then in the text describe what those updates are.

---

Q4:

The text in Section 1.1 says:

"The currently existing iCalendar [RFC5545] RELATED-TO property has no support
for..."

Please avoid "currently", because it will have a different meaning depending on
when someone reads the spec.

Instead, I suggest to simply say:

"The iCalendar [RFC5545] RELATED-TO property has no support for..."