[Id-event] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-secevent-subject-identifiers-15: (with COMMENT)

[Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-secevent-subject-identifiers-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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



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

# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-secevent-subject-identifiers-15

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Christer Holmberg for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/OrPm6xTVtSfi6MlSGvJg4rpKusI).

## Comments

### Section 3.2.1, paragraph 0
```
  3.2.1.  Account Identifier Format
```
Would there be any reason to use URIs more generally when encoding these
identifiers, e.g., also for tel: (RFC3966) or mailto: (RFC2368)?

### Section 3.2.7, paragraph 0
```
  3.2.7.  Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Format
```
Email addresses and phone numbers (and maybe other identifiers) can be encoded
per the sections above, and also as URIs - should something be said about this?
Is one preferred?

### Boilerplate

This document uses the RFC2119 keywords "SHOULD NOT", "SHALL NOT", "REQUIRED",
"MUST NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "OPTIONAL", "MUST", "SHOULD", "MAY", and "SHALL",
but does not contain the recommended RFC8174 boilerplate. (It contains a
variant of the RFC2119 boilerplate.)

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### URLs

These URLs in the document can probably be converted to HTTPS:

 * http://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html
 * http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-E.164-201011-I/en
 * http://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt

### Grammar/style

#### Section 1, paragraph 1
```
e others only have phone numbers. Therefore it can be necessary to indicate w
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Therefore".

#### Section 3, paragraph 3
```
ciated with that email address. Consequently Subject Identifiers remove ambig
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Consequently".

#### Section 8.1, paragraph 1
```
cription: Subject identifier based on an phone number. * Change Controller:
                                      ^^
```
Use "a" instead of "an" if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound,
e.g. "a sentence", "a university".

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool