Subject: [calsify] Review of draft-ietf-calext-ical-relations-00

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:11:46 -0500

Overall, this document looks good.  Comments below.

- There are several instances of "Icalendar", which should be changed to 
"iCalendar"

- Since we update the RELATED-TO property, the boilerplate should state 
that this document updates RFC 5545

- Sec 1.1, last para, last sent: "These changes allows ..." -> "These 
changes allow ..."

- Sec 1.4, last para: Should the discussion of ATTACH handling reference 
draft-ietf-calext-caldav-attachments?

- Sec 4, para 1, last sent: "... a link to an component ..." -> "... a 
link to a component ..."

- Sec 4, Description, para 2: "It defines ..." -> "This parameter 
defines ..."

- Sec, 7: For the new non-TEXT properties, should we explicitly state 
that there is NO default value type to force producers to always include 
VALUE= so that consumers not familiar with the property don't assume an 
incorrect type?

- Sec 7.1, Description, last sent: presumably the Bedework reference 
needs to be changes to something else

- Sec 7.2: Value type is listed as URI, TEXT, or REFERENCE, but the 
definition only shows URI and REFERENCE

- Sec 8.1: Value type UID appears to be missing

- Sec 10.2: I don't think STRUCTURED-CATEGORY belongs.  Its not a parameter.

- Sec 10.4: I don't think REL belongs

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University