Re: [Jmap] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-jmap-smime-09: (with COMMENT)

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Menachem/Warren,

My apologies, I don't think I've seen the OpsDir review, so I will reply 
to it separately.

In regards to lack of "Updates: 8621": as this defines a JMAP extension 
that doesn't modify the base JMAP protocol (other than extending it), it 
is not customary to include "Updates: 8621". Or to rephrase: a reader of 
RFC 8621 doesn't need to know about existence of this document unless 
there is desire to implement it.

Best Regards,

Alexey

On 20/10/2021 06:02, מנחם דודג' wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was not involved in any email discussions regarding my review.
>
> Thank you kindly.
>
> Best Regards,
> Menachem
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 20 באוק׳ 2021 ב-2:10 מאת ‪Warren Kumari via 
> Datatracker‬‏ <‪[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>‬‏>:‬
>
>     Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
>     draft-ietf-jmap-smime-09: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
>     <https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-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-smime/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jmap-smime/>
>
>
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     COMMENT:
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Thanks to Menachem Dodge for the OpsDir review; I see that the
>     author has
>     incorporated / addressed many of the comments/nits, but I don't
>     think I saw any
>     sort of discussion around the "Please consider whether the
>     document header
>     should indicate "Updates: 8621"." (which Benjamin also referenced).
>
>     It is entirely possible that I completely missed any discussions,
>     but I'd be
>     interested in an answer if possible.
>