On 3/27/14, 11:19 AM, Philipp Kewisch wrote:
On Mar 27, 2014, at 17:58, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote:
On 3/26/14, 5:31 AM, Philipp Kewisch wrote:
I have just uploaded a new version of the document, it contains all
considerations from the Gen-ART and secdir review, as well as changes
based on the IESG evaluations.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcal-10.txt
There are still 1-2 issues where I am waiting on email replies, but I
wanted to have a version ready for the IESG Telechat tomorrow.
Have you received replies to those email messages?
I have answered all emails I am aware of. I also mentioned the new version on
this gen-art thread.
Great.
To jcarcal folks: I'd apprecicate if you could take a look at
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jcardcal/trac/ and comment on the
outstanding issues.
I looked at the issues you posted here:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jcardcal/trac/report/1
I think 66 and 68 can be closed because they were fixed in version -10, right?
Yes, I believe so too.
I think 69 deserves to be wontfix, because it's easy enough to find the
relevant ABNF constructions in RFC 7159. However, for completeness you could
list them individually. As far as I can see, the constructions we include are:
begin-array
begin-object
end-array
end-object
name-separator
value-separator
string
number
true
false
I don't mind mentioning these, I can upload a new version with this if you
like. Or can we have this added by the editor?
I think we can handle this as an RFC Editor note (via Pete, our AD) or
during AUTH48. Feel free to add it to your XML source (or Markdown or
whatever you use) so you don't forget. :-)
Peter
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
