Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-jmap-calendars-19
review-ietf-jmap-calendars-19-artart-lc-mahoney-2024-06-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-jmap-calendars
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 22)
Type Last Call Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2024-06-27
Requested 2024-06-13
Authors Neil Jenkins , Michael Douglass
I-D last updated 2024-06-26
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -18 by Roni Even (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -19 by Jean Mahoney (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -18 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jean Mahoney
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-jmap-calendars by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/l0ya2tx2vAVkX9DoW5ndANuuqQ8
Reviewed revision 19 (document currently at 22)
Result Ready w/nits
Completed 2024-06-26
review-ietf-jmap-calendars-19-artart-lc-mahoney-2024-06-26-00
This draft is well written and is ready from an ART perspective. I found myself
wanting a few more examples (e.g., for "shareWith", which I found in
draft-ietf-jmap-sharing), but I'm not an expert in JMAP.

Nits:

Section 1.4. Definition of Principal -- while there is a reference to
[I-D.ietf-jmap-sharing] before the term Principal is used, the term is not
defined or otherwise explained. A more explicit pointer or a definition would
be helpful here.

Section 4. The following description is hard to parse. There can be multiple
principals for a calendar, but "id" is singular in this paragraph:

   *  *shareWith*: Id[CalendarRights]|null (default: null)

      A map of Principal id to rights for principals this calendar is
      shared with.  ... The account id for the principals...

Section 5. s/overriden/overridden

Section 5.8.1. The following line is too long and was truncated when I tried to
print the document:

          participants~1dG9tQGZvb2Jhci5xlLmNvbQ~1participationStatus": null

Section 5.8.1. s/This would mean remove/This would mean removing

Section 6. s/The contents/The content

Section 6.3. Does the following suggestion improve readability?

   Current:

   2.  Add a new alert to the event with an AbsoluteTrigger for the
       date-time the alert has been snoozed until.

   Perhaps:

   2.  Add a new alert to the event that has an AbsoluteTrigger
       specifying the date-time when the alert is to be sent again.

Section 9.3.2. s/only be/only by

Terminology:

  o Principal is inconsistently capitalized.

  o Quotes are inconsistently used for object, method, and property names.

Best regards,
Jean