Subject: [calsify] Requesting JSCalendar WGLC

From: Robert Stepanek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 18:09:08 +0200

About  a month ago we updated the JSCalendar RFC draft to version 05 since workgroup adoption:  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar

It addresses the feedback we got in the last months, including IETF 101 and the calsify mailing list. Additionally, we got feedback from CalConnect members, up to and including latest CalConnect XLII in June 2018. If anyone does not find their input addressed, please let us know.

We kindly ask the workgroup chairs to start last call for this RFC draft, if there aren't any objections. Our goal is to finalize the RFC in the next 4 weeks.

Thanks,
Robert

---

From: Adrian Apthorp <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 22:21:49 +0800

Robert,

Just a couple of comments for clarification:

1) I don't see the previous comment I made on task status addressed 
(section 5.2.8). As worded it implies that 'status' refers to the 
scheduling status when in fact it is the overall status of the task.

2) Great to see 'pending' and 'failed' statuses are included. However 
the definition of 'pending' needs to be clarified to distinguish from 
'needs-action'. We proposed 'created and accepted, but has not yet 
started'. There's a bit more on the valid states and state changes in 
the Tasks draft. See examples at the end of the document.

I have one more significant comment that I've raised before. I see an 
opportunity to change 5.2.5 from 'completed' to a general purpose last 
status change time stamp 'status_changed'. i.e. If the task has 
completed then the value of 'status_changed' is the completed time. I 
know this is a more significant change but mitigates 'completed' 
becoming a redundant element with a potential future change.

Cheers

Adrian

On 14/08/18 00:09, Robert Stepanek wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> calsify mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify