Re: [Jmap] John Scudder's Discuss on draft-ietf-jmap-sharing-08: (with DISCUSS)

[Neil Jenkins <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

Many thanks for your comments. I have published an updated draft <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jmap-sharing-09.html> to address them, response to specific points below:

> RFC 8620 doesn't say "typically has" it says "has", which to my eyes is a
> requirement, not a suggestion, notwithstanding the lack of RFC 2119 keyword.
> 
> If (as it appears) you're making a normative change to what RFC 8620 specifies,
> that doesn't bother me,  but I think you should call it out more clearly, and I
> think you should use the Updates: 8620 header.

Looking at this, I agree; it is a normative change. I have added the "Updates" header and made it clearer in the text this is a change that overrides the previous behaviour.

> After reading Section 4 of your document, though, I wonder if you are even
> talking about the same thing as what RFC 8620 describes as a subscription.

No, these are not the same. PushSubscription is a specific data type, used to manage when the client should receive a push notification for changes via WebPush (RFC8030 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8030>). The sharing document is talking about the concept of being subscribed to data that is shared with you to indicate you actually want that data showing in your client. I have updated the text to at least use "is subscribed to" consistently rather than "subscription", which I hope decreases the chance of confusion a bit. I do not believe a confusion around this has arisen in anyone with some JMAP experience that has reviewed/implemented this document, so I feel this should be fine.

Cheers,
Neil.