Neil,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have expanded the abbreviation in the title. Please let
us know if any updates are necessary.
Original:
JMAP for Contacts
Current:
JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) for Contacts
-->
2) <!-- [rfced] Section 2. We're having difficulty parsing the end of the
following sentence. Should the client's UI offer to let the user subscribe?
Original:
If false, the AddressBook and its contents SHOULD only be
displayed when the user explicitly requests it or to offer it for
the user to subscribe to.
Possibly:
If false, the AddressBook and its contents SHOULD only be
displayed when the user explicitly requests it. The UI may
offer to the user the option of subscribing to it.
-->
3) <!-- [rfced] Section 2.3. May we rephrase the following sentence to specify
"the default"?
Original:
As per [RFC8620], Section 5.3, if the default is successfully
changed, any changed objects MUST be reported in either the "created"
or "updated" argument in the response as appropriate, with the
server-set value included.
Perhaps:
As per Section 5.3 of [RFC8620], if the default AddressBook is
successfully changed, any changed objects MUST be reported in either the
"created" or "updated" argument in the response as appropriate with the
server-set value included.
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] May we remove the annotation from the [UNICODE] reference? We
believe the reference is stable enough not to need supporting text.
Current:
[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard",
<https://www.unicode.org/versions/latest/>. Note that
this reference is to the latest version of Unicode, rather
than to a specific release. It is not expected that
future changes in the Unicode Standard will affect the
referenced definitions.
Suggested:
[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard",
<https://www.unicode.org/versions/latest/>.
-->
5) <!-- [rfced] In the html and pdf outputs, the text enclosed in <tt> is
output in fixed-width font. In the txt output, there are no changes to the
font, and the quotation marks have been removed.
In the html and pdf outputs, the text enclosed in <em> is output in
italics. In the txt output, the text enclosed in <em> appears with an
underscore before and after.
In the html and pdf outputs, the text enclosed in <strong> is output in
bold. In the txt output, the text enclosed in <strong> appears with an
asterisk before and after.
Please review carefully and let us know if the output is acceptable or if
any updates are needed. For example, should <tt>forbidden</tt> SetError be
"forbidden" SetError instead?
-->
6) <!-- [rfced] In the XML file, we updated artwork to sourcecode in Sections
4.1 and 4.2. Please confirm that this is correct.
In addition, please consider whether the "type" attribute of the sourcecode
element has been set correctly to "json".
The current list of preferred values for "type" is available at
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types>.
If the current list does not contain an applicable type, feel free to
suggest additions for consideration. Note that it is also acceptable
to leave the "type" attribute not set.
-->
7) <!-- [rfced] Should the following instances of "contacts data", "contacts
data model", and "contacts servers", be updated to use the
singular form ("contact data", "contact data model", and "contact servers") for
consistency?
Original (a):
This document specifies a data model for synchronising contacts data
with a server using JMAP.
Perhaps (a):
This document specifies a data model for synchronising contact data
with a server using JMAP.
Original (b):
An Account (see [RFC8620], Section 1.6.2) with support for the
contacts data model contains zero or more AddressBook objects, which
is a named collection of zero or more ContactCards.
Perhaps (b):
An Account (see [RFC8620], Section 1.6.2) with support for the
contact data model contains zero or more AddressBook objects, which is a
named collection of zero or more ContactCards.
Original (c):
Privacy leaks can have real world consequences, and contacts
servers and clients MUST be mindful of the need to keep all data secure.
Perhaps (c):
Privacy leaks can have real world consequences, and contact
servers and clients MUST be mindful of the need to keep all data secure.
-->
8) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations upon first use
per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each expansion
in the document carefully to ensure correctness.
-->
9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for
readers. For example, please consider whether the term "whitespace" should be
updated.
-->
10) <!-- [rfced] We note that the following terms appear inconsistently
throughout the document. Please review each instance and let us know
if we should update.
a) Capitalization
Id vs. id
Principal vs. principal
(Note that RFC 9670 uses the capitalized form of "Principal".)
uid vs. UID
b) Formatting
We see that property names use a mix of formatting styles (with and
without quotes, with and without <tt/>). Note that RFC 8620 uses
quotes around property names. Examples:
id property
"iud" property
<tt>uri</tt> property
Objects also use a mix of formatting styles (with and without
<strong/>). For example:
<strong>AddressBook</strong> object
Media object
-->
Thank you.
RFC Editor/mc/jm
On 12/2/24 12:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2024/12/02
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
* [email protected] (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
* [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
[email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9610.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9610.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9610.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9610.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9610-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9610-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9610-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9610
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9610 (draft-ietf-jmap-contacts-10)
Title : JMAP for Contacts
Author(s) : N. Jenkins
WG Chair(s) : Bron Gondwana, Jim Fenton
Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Orie Steele
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
