Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles-11
review-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles-11-artart-telechat-kyzivat-2026-01-31-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Telechat Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2026-02-03
Requested 2026-01-29
Authors Robert Stepanek , Mario Loffredo
I-D last updated 2026-03-13 (Latest revision 2026-02-17)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -09 by Behcet Sarikaya (diff)
Artart IETF Last Call review of -09 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Artart Telechat review of -11 by Paul Kyzivat (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Paul Kyzivat
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/UU2lSXvR1Z4uQbe9mEZZGb3FVJk/
Reviewed revision 11 (document currently at 14)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2026-01-31
review-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles-11-artart-telechat-kyzivat-2026-01-31-00
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am the assigned ARTART reviewer for this Internet-Draft.

Document: draft-ietf-calext-jscontact-profiles-11
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2026-01-31
IETF LC End Date: 2025-11-25
IESG Telechat date: 2026-02-03

Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described 
in the review.

This document has resolved most of the issues I raised on the -09 
version for Last Call. One of those was a NIT: long lines. This too has 
been resolved. But the resolution has raised another issue.

The long lines were in Table 1, in an example of how to define the 
properties of a profile. In version -09 the table had columns to define 
all possible profile properties that might need to be specified. This 
yielded a table wider that the maximum RFC line length. Version -11 has 
"solved" this by removing a column that was not needed for this specific 
example.

While this solved the problem for this example, it doesn't solve the 
problem for someone who wants to register a profile that needs all the 
columns. It seems unwise to leave it to future registrants to devise a 
solution.

I suggest that this document expand its example to include all the 
possible profile properties, and specify a suitable way to document them 
for a registration.