Subject: [Jmap] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-jmap-core-15: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 12:23:57 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-jmap-core-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-core/

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

Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS questions. Original COMMENT is below.

= Section 1.1 =

Please use the RFC 8174 boilerplate instead of the RFC 2119 boilerplate.

= Section 2=

s/To avoid conflict, the identifiers for these MUST be a URL with a domain
owned by the vendor./To avoid conflict, an identifier for a vendor-specific
extension MUST be a URL with a domain owned by the vendor./

= Section 8 =

Depending on the outcome of the discussion related to the DISCUSS point above,
I think it would be appropriate to describe or even normatively require client
ID construction such that client IDs are opaque and can change over time at the
client's choosing.