[Jmap] Mahesh Jethanandani's No Objection on draft-ietf-jmap-sharing-08: (with COMMENT)

[Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-jmap-sharing-08: 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-jmap-sharing/



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

Thanks to Susan Hares for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/nZz2fnG_Y5EFsQnoPvi1-q-_y7Y).
and to Yaron Sheffer for the SECDIR review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/RJWI2E_uRwrUcp18hFZV-LZ7WEw).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Reference [RFC7564] to RFC7564, which was obsoleted by RFC8264 (this may be on
purpose).

Section 2, paragraph 5
> ilable. If given, the value MUST be conform with the "addr-spec" syntax, as d
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
There may an error in the verb form "be conform".

Section 3.2, paragraph 2
>  on the data type in question. For example it might be the "title" property o
>                                    ^^^^^^^
A comma is probably missing here.

Section 4, paragraph 2
> The specification makes the lists sharable by referencing this document and d
>                                   ^^^^^^^^
Do not mix variants of the same word ("sharable" and "shareable") within a
single text.