7
|
1 Document: draft-ietf-extra-processimip-07
|
|
2 Intended RFC status: Proposed Standard
|
|
3 Review type: artart - Last Call review
|
|
4 Reviewer: Henry S. Thompson
|
|
5 Review Date: 2024-06-28
|
|
6 Result:
|
|
7
|
|
8 *Summary*
|
|
9
|
|
10 *Substantive points*
|
|
11
|
|
12 Section 4: "based on the iTIP method (see Section 1.4 of [RFC5546]) of
|
|
13 the message, calendar objects are created, updated or deleted..." --
|
|
14 but the introduction says "sometimes the enclosed iCalendar [RFC5545]
|
|
15 data does not include an iTIP method property".
|
|
16
|
|
17 I'm confused at this point: If there _is_, for example, an iTIP
|
|
18 "REQUEST" method specified, does the processcalendar script _replace_,
|
|
19 _modify_ or _supplement_ that method, or what?
|
|
20
|
|
21 Section 4: "contains calendar data in multiple MIME [RFC2045] parts"
|
|
22 -- This seems underspecified. It makes most sense for multiple
|
|
23 calendar parts all in a single multipart/alternative, but why
|
|
24 shouldn't multiple calendar parts with different semantics be allowed
|
|
25 (possibly nested at some depth) in a multipart/mixed?
|
|
26
|
|
27
|
|
28 *Minor points*
|
|
29
|
|
30 Section 3: I take it that by "capability identifier" is meant
|
|
31 "capability name" or "capability string" as used in RFC5228. Please
|
|
32 change the name of this section to one of these, and include a
|
|
33 reference to 5228.
|
|
34
|
|
35 Section 4: Similarly, in the opening sentence of this section a
|
|
36 reference to 5228 would be welcome.
|
|
37
|
|
38 Section 4: "If the calendar data is malformed in any way" -- this
|
|
39 hides a potential multitude of detail. I presume that in part this
|
|
40 means "malformed according to the media type specified for the
|
|
41 encapsulated calendar data", but also implies something along the
|
|
42 lines of "or if the specified media type is not supported". That is,
|
|
43 no sniffing or just scanning for strings that look like dates.
|
|
44
|
|
45
|
|
46
|
|
47 *Nits*
|
|
48
|
|
49 [iMIP] appears to be an RFC now: iCalendar Message-Based
|
|
50 Interoperability Protocol (iMIP) RFC 6047
|
|
51
|
|
52 ht
|
|
53 --
|
|
54
|
|
55 [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-coap-pubsub-12
|