Greetings, This is a friendly weekly reminder that this document awaits your attention. Please review the document-specific questions and AUTH48 announcement. Let us know if we can be of assistance as you begin the AUTH48 review process.
The AUTH48 status page of this document is viewable at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9610 The AUTH48 FAQs are available at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#auth48 We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Thank you, RFC Editor/mc > On Dec 2, 2024, at 12:57 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > 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, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org 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 > > * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (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). > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, 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, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org 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 -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
