Subject: [calsify] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-calext-availability-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 06:48:24 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-calext-availability-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-calext-availability/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is Qin Wu's OPS DIR review on v3. The discussion is well engaged
with the authors, and changes will be applied to the next version.

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. 
These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call
may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors
and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
comments.

This document proposes a new iCalendar calendar component that allows the
publication of available and unavailable time periods associated with a
calendar user and further extends CalDAV calendar-access and
calendar-auto-schedule to allow free-busy looksup to use the information
from the new iCalendar availability components.

I think this document is ready for publication. Here are a few editorial
comments:

1.       Paragraph 4,5 of section 1:

Is Update to RFC4791 required when you introduce an extension to CALDAV
calendar-acess and CALDAV calendar-auto-schedule features?

Can new iCalendar availability component work together with VERFY
component? Or They are exclusive.

2．Section 4

How VALAILABILITY component works together with VERYBUSY component? It
looks the section 3 is about how one VAVAILABILITY component works
together with another VAVAILABILITY component while the section 5 is
about one VAVAILABILITY component works together with other component?
Would you like to make this clear in the section title or in the texts of
each section.

3. Last paragraph of section 4

Since the range for priority property value is {0,9~1}, spacing out
method doesn’t looks scalable suppose you have 20 components that need to
be ordered by priority.

Is there any default priority difference between two intersecting
component with different priority value? In your example, it seems you
choose 2?

4. The 3rd paragraph of section 5

s/ first available time /first the available time

5.Example procedure in the section 5

Suggest to move all the example to one place .e.g., appendix A since it
is hard to understand when some example snippet in one place and other
example snippet in the appendix.

6. Section 5, step 2 of example procedure said:

“

Append the "VAVAILABILITY" component to a list of components

           for further processing in step 3, if it has not been ignored.

”

Step 3 is confusing, since the example procedure has a third step, in the
second step, there is also a 3rd step. Suggest change 4 steps in the step
2 into sub step such as step 2.1, step 2.2, step 2.3, step 2.4 Then you
will clear the confusing step 3 in the step 2 with step 3 in the example
procedure.

7. Section 5, the first paragraph said:

“

In the examples below a table is used to represent time slots for the

   period of a free-busy request.

”

There are two tables in the section 5.1, which table are you referred to?
I believe it is the second table, I would suggest to add a number and
title for each table and then you can reference table number to clear the
confusing introduced here.

8. Section 5.1.2

Would you like to generate a similar table as one in the section 5.1.1?

9. Section 7.1 said:

“

"VAVAILABILITY" components are treated in a manner similar to

   "VEVENT" and "VTODO" components,

”

How VENET and VTDO component are treated? In which way? Can you provide a
reference which discuss how VEVENT component is treated?

-Qin