Subject: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcard-05

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:16:43 +0200 (CEST)

Hello all,

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for 
this draft (for background on appsdir, please see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD
before posting a new version of the draft.

Document:  draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcard-05

Title: jCard: The JSON format for vCard

Reviewer: Claudio Allocchio
Review Date: July 17th, 2013

Summary: The document is nearly ready for publication. Only minor fixes 
are needed.

Major issues:

none

Minor Issues:

Conventions Used in thei document:

There were many discussions in the past about using "large quotings from 
other documents or just 'pointing to them'. I do nderstand that in this 
draft the quoting is ""partial" JSON documents used for illustrative 
purposes." but we should be careful in this!

Nits:

Intoduction: there is a duplicate paragraph!

    The purpose of this specification is to define "jCard", a JSON format
    for vCard data.  One main advantage to using a JSON-based format as
    defined in [RFC4627] over the classic vCard format is easier
    processing for JavaScript based widgets and libraries, especially in
    the scope of web-based applications.

(same text in the end of first paragraph!):

  application.  The vCard format has gone through multiple revisions,
    most recently vCard 4.  The purpose of this specification is to
    define "jCard", a JSON format for vCard data.  One main advantage to
    using a JSON-based format as defined in [RFC4627] over the classic
    vCard format is easier processing for JavaScript based widgets and
    libraries, especially in the scope of web-based applications.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          [email-masked]
                         Senior Technical Officer
tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;

            PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca

---

From: Glenn Parsons <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:21:42 +0000

Hello all,

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document:  draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-04

Title: Conference Focus Indicating CCMP Support

Reviewer: Glenn Parsons
Review Date: July 19th, 2013

Summary: The document is needs some improvements in explanation and then would be ready for publication.

Major issues:

There are 4 approaches described here.  And two are standardized.  The abstract indicates that pros/cons are explained, but these only appear for the two not chosen.  The reader would benefit from understanding the difference in choosing between the two approaches standardized.  Further, what is the recommendation for the two not chosen?  Could these still be used and they are shown as a guide?  Or must they not be used?

Minor Issues:

In the abstract:

...the XCON conference event package RFC 4575 [RFC4575] ... This appears to be incorrect.  Do you want to refer the RFC 6502 or 4575 here?  I suspect it is the former, and if so some mention of this in the body of the document (like in 2.1 with XCON-URI) is needed as well as a reference.

In the Introduction:

 RFC 5238 [RFC5239] defines a... ->  RFC 5239 [RFC5239] defines a...

In 2.1, 4.2:
Focus -> conference focus.  Perhaps a reference to the definition of this term would be helpful.

Nits:

None.

---

From: Philipp Kewisch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 19:36:43 +0200

On 7/18/13 10:16 AM, Claudio Allocchio wrote:
> There were many discussions in the past about using "large quotings 
> from other documents or just 'pointing to them'. I do nderstand that 
> in this draft the quoting is ""partial" JSON documents used for 
> illustrative purposes." but we should be careful in this!
Could you elaborate on this? This is my first RFC so I may not be aware 
of all past discussion. As this format just makes use of JSON and is a 
different representation for iCalendar, I personally think its valid to 
point to these documents.
> Intoduction: there is a duplicate paragraph!
Taken care of. Not sure how that got there!