That makes sense to me. -andy
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:11 AM Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenb...@verisign.com> wrote: > Andy, should we get in on the DISPATCH discussion to note that we have > similar concerns with jCard and RDAP? If there’s talk of a new WG it may > make sense to add our requirements to the list. > > > > Scott > > > > *From:* regext <regext-boun...@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Andrew Newton > *Sent:* Thursday, February 14, 2019 11:09 AM > *To:* Registration Protocols Extensions <regext@ietf.org> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [regext] Fwd: [dispatch] Requesting DISPATCH of > JSContact > > > > As an FYI, we're not the only ones less than in love with jCard. > > > > -andy > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *Bron Gondwana* <br...@fastmailteam.com> > Date: Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:22 AM > Subject: [dispatch] Requesting DISPATCH of JSContact > To: <dispa...@ietf.org> > > > > Hi All, > > > > As work concludes on > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-calext-jscalendar-11 there is > interest in doing the same thing with a format for contacts. > > > > The JSCalendar work grew out of the JMAP specification at > https://jmap.io/spec-calendars.html <https://jmap..io/spec-calendars.html> > - there was interest in producing a standalone format which was JSON-native > rather the RFC7265's quite mechanical translation of iCalendar, which is > confusing and unfamiliar to programmers used to working with JSON data. > > > > Likewise, JMAP Contacts contains an early attempt at translating VCARD > into an easily understood JSON format. The shape of it is defined at > https://jmap.io/spec-contacts.html - though I expect it would undergo > significant revision before submission for publication. We are aware of > both RFC6350 and RFC7095 and would both use them as a guideline and define > mappings between them and a new JSON-first format. > > > > I have already spoken to the ART ADs about this, and they agree that > dispatch is the correct venue to discuss this proposal. The JMAP working > group could take it on, but has been mostly focused on the protocols around > the formats rather than that formats itself (other than mail). The CALEXT > working group has would be a potential place, if it was to recharter and > increase scope to both contacts and calendars (since they seem to travel > together in many places due to the use of DAV for both). Or maybe > something else. > > > > I'm also aware of work within ISO to define address formats and structured > name formats which are less western-centric than the existing VCARD 'N' and > 'ADR' structured fields. This format would try to remain backwards > compatible with those fields while having a defined way to express the new > formats. > > > > I have asked that the existing JMAP work be put into an initial draft so > we have a baseline in IETF style, knowing full well that it is likely to > change significantly. > > > > Cheers, > > > Bron. > > > > -- > > Bron Gondwana, CEO, FastMail Pty Ltd > > br...@fastmailteam.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dispatch mailing list > dispa...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch >
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
