Subject: [calsify] draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-26 - section 3.1

From: Michael Douglass <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 15:54:24 -0400

I think this paragraph is incorrect (section 3.1):

    JSCalendar aims to provide unambiguous definitions for value types
    and properties, but does not define a general normalization or
    equivalence method for JSCalendar objects and types.  This is because
    the notion of equivalence might range from byte-level equivalence to
    semantic equivalence, depending on the respective use case (for
    example, the CalDAV protocol [RFC4791  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4791>] requires octet equivalence of
    the encoded calendar object to determine ETag equivalence).

It's not CalDAV that requires that - it's 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7232#section-2.3

I absolutely agree we shouldn't make the same mistake of using etags as 
change tokens - there is no allowance for semantic equivalence (though 
there's some suggestion weak etags might work.) I would be inclined to 
either delete

  (for
    example, the CalDAV protocol [RFC4791  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4791>] requires octet equivalence of
    the encoded calendar object to determine ETag equivalence)

The paragraph at the end may be an appropriate place to say "use a 
change token"

    Considering this, the definition of equivalence and normalization is
    left to client and server implementations and to be negotiated by a
    calendar exchange protocol or defined elsewhere.

---

From: "Robert Stepanek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 15:30:22 +0200

> [...]
> I would be inclined to either delete
>  (for
> The paragraph at the end may be an appropriate place to say "use a change token"

   left to client and server implementations and to be negotiated by a
   calendar exchange protocol or defined elsewhere

Yes, thanks for the correction. I'll update the spec draft.

Cheers,
Robert

---

From: Michael Douglass <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:12:02 -0400

Another typo in section 7.3

discusses security risk related to URIs.

should be

discusses security risks related to URIs.

On 4/30/20 09:30, Robert Stepanek wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> calsify mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify