Subject: [Jmap] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-jmap-mdn-15: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 09:01:20 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-jmap-mdn-15: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jmap-mdn/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There are several places in the document where "header" should be changed to
"header field".

In Section 2.1, I think this could be a bit clearer:

OLD:

The following already registered SetError would mean:

NEW:

In this context, the existing SetError values defined in [reference] are
interpreted as follows:

In Sections 2.1 and 2.2:

This is totally a personal nit, and you're free to ignore me, but since I keep
tripping on it I'll mention it: In various places, "id" is used as a word
rather than an initialism, as in "The id of the account to use."  I keep
reading this as the English term from psychoanalysis rather than a truncation
of "identifier".  I'd probably be happier if the full word was used.  Also, in
the first bullet of Section 2, it's capitalized as "Id"; we should probably be
consistent.

In Section 3:

a) s/guaranty/guarantee/ (multiple instances)

b) There's an extension in Section 3.1 starting with "X-" that should probably
be revisited given BCP 178.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:17:30 -0400

> be revisited given BCP 178.

Yes, indeed, and I'm sorry I missed these in my review.  Flrg.

> of "identifier".  I'd probably be happier if the full word was used.

I agree that we should simply spell out "identifier", and I strongly
encourage that change.

> a) s/guaranty/guarantee/ (multiple instances)

How US-centric of you, Murray!

Barry