[Ietf-calsify] IETF Review of rfc2446bis-07

Eliot Lear lear at cisco.com
Mon Sep 8 04:52:59 PDT 2008


Reinhold,

Thanks for all of this.  I've begun to split issues into categories, but 
given the size of it I'll need a day or so just to do that.

All, please review Reinhold's comments and comment.

Eliot


Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Dear Calsify group,
>
> Eric Burger asked me if I could review the latest draft of rfc2446bis, which I
> agreed to. I tried to read the draft very carefully and with utmost
> diligence, trying to be extremely picky. I found lots of issues, obvious
> typos and contradictions, or simply things that should/might be explained a
> little better. There are also some things that I've not completely understood
> from the draft.
>
> Here is my review, where I mention all issues / questions sequentially,
> ordered as they appear in the draft (thus mixing errors with open questions
> and suggestings).
> I wrote it in LaTeX, mainly because of its size and to make cross-references
> and automatic numbering easier. I'm attaching the PDF file, the LaTeX source
> document and a HTML-representation produced by hyperlatex (with some tweaks
> to achieve the consecutive item numbering for the lists).
> Apparently, the message size of the calsify list is set too low to be able to
> attach the review, so I uploaded it to my homepage:
> http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/Computing/Review_RFC2446bis_2008-09.pdf
> http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/Computing/Review_RFC2446bis_2008-09.html
> http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/Computing/Review_RFC2446bis_2008-09.tex
>
> I know that some of the things might sound like nitpicking. However, from my
> experience with RFC 2445, if there is anything that can possibly be
> misunderstood, it will probably be misunderstood by some implementor.
> Thus, I strived to find also all the spots where things could be spelled out a
> little more detailled. In my eyes, a standards document should be unambiguous
> and still easy to understand. Please view my comments in this light.
>
> On the other hand, I really wonder how things like the following could have
> survived in a public RFC for more than a decade:
>     DTSTART:19980101T100000-0700
> or
>     STATUS:IN-PROGRESS
> for a todo or
>     RRULE:FREQ=WEEKLY;INTERVAL=20;WKST=SU;BYDAY=TU
> for an event that should recur every week for 20 weeks or
>     DTSTART:19970701T200000Z
>     DTEND:19970701T2000000Z
> for an event or completely messed-up timezone conversions (Sec. 4.4.1).
>
> Most of my points do not change the meaning of the RFC draft at all and can
> probably be included with only very little discussion / controversy.
>
> While cross-checking some issues, I also came across some things in
> rfc2445bis-08, which might be changed there. These are listed at the end of
> my review.
>
> Cheers,
> Reinhold
>
> PS: Sorry (well, not really...) for all the work that my review will bring to
> the ietf calsify team, but well, you asked for it ;-)
>
>    



More information about the Ietf-calsify mailing list