> On Mar 27, 2014, at 17:58, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 3/26/14, 5:31 AM, Philipp Kewisch wrote:
>> I have just uploaded a new version of the document, it contains all
>> considerations from the Gen-ART and secdir review, as well as changes
>> based on the IESG evaluations.
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcal-10.txt
>>
>> There are still 1-2 issues where I am waiting on email replies, but I
>> wanted to have a version ready for the IESG Telechat tomorrow.
>
> Have you received replies to those email messages?
I have answered all emails I am aware of. I also mentioned the new version on
this gen-art thread.
>
>> To jcarcal folks: I'd apprecicate if you could take a look at
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jcardcal/trac/ and comment on the
>> outstanding issues.
>
> I looked at the issues you posted here:
>
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/jcardcal/trac/report/1
>
> I think 66 and 68 can be closed because they were fixed in version -10, right?
Yes, I believe so too.
>
> I think 69 deserves to be wontfix, because it's easy enough to find the
> relevant ABNF constructions in RFC 7159. However, for completeness you could
> list them individually. As far as I can see, the constructions we include are:
>
> begin-array
> begin-object
> end-array
> end-object
> name-separator
> value-separator
> string
> number
> true
> false
I don't mind mentioning these, I can upload a new version with this if you
like. Or can we have this added by the editor?
>
> IMHO 67 is a nice little research project but I don't particularly think it's
> necessary to complete that research in order to advance the jCal
> specification.
I agree.
Philipp
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
