Thanks for this - see updates below
I've just submitted a version 09 of the draft.
On 10/31/21 08:07, Christer Holmberg via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review result: Ready with Nits
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
---
Done
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".
---
---OLD---
This specification updates RELATED-TO defined in iCalendar (RFC5545)
and introduces new iCalendar properties LINK, CONCEPT and REFID to
allow better linking and grouping of iCalendar components and related
data.
---OLD---
---NEW---
This specification updates the iCalendar RELATED-TO property by
adding new relation types and introduces new iCalendar properties
LINK, CONCEPT and REFID to allow better linking and grouping of
iCalendar components and related data.
---NEW---
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.
Changed to update
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.
I've changed the name and added text
---OLD---
9. Redefined RELATED-TO Property
9.1. RELATED-TO
---OLD---
---NEW---
9. Updates to RFC 5545
This specification updates the RELATED-TO property defined in
Section 3.8.4.5 of [RFC5545].
The RELTYPE parameter is extended to take new values defining
temporal relationships, a GAP parameter is defined to provide lead
and lag values, and RELATED-TO is extended to allow URI values.
These changes allow the RELATED-TO property to define a richer set of
relationships useful for project management.
9.1. RELATED-TO
---NEW---
:
---
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..."
Done
_______________________________________________
calsify mailing list
cals...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art