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