[Jmap] Re: Gunter Van de Velde's No Objection on draft-ietf-jmap-contacts-09: (with COMMENT)

[Neil Jenkins <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gunter,

Thank you for your review.

On Thu, 23 May 2024, at 18:46, Gunter Van de Velde via Datatracker wrote:
> 191        *  *isDefault*: Boolean (server-set)
> 192           This SHOULD be true for exactly one AddressBook in any account,
> 193           and MUST NOT be true for more than one AddressBook within an
> 194           account.  The default AddressBook should be used by clients
> 195           whenever they need to choose an AddressBook for the user within
> 196           this account, and they do not have any other information on which
> 197           to make a choice.  For example, if the user creates a new contact
> 198           card, the client may automatically set the card as belonging to
> 199           the default AddressBook from the user's primary account.
> 
> What if none is set true? will there then be a random selected at default?
> is there a mechanism or desire to make such selection deterministic?

It is entirely up to the client in this case to just choose one, if there is more than one and no default specified. If you are in this situation, I don't really see any value in trying to recommend a deterministic choice in this document. (It's probably better for the client to prompt the user to choose a default, but we're getting into UI territory here and we don't need to specify this at the protocol level).

> 201        *  *isSubscribed*: Boolean
> 
> 203           True if the user has indicated they wish to see this AddressBook
> 204           in their client.  This should default to false for AddressBooks in
> 205           shared accounts the user has access to and true for any new
> 206           AddressBooks created by the user themself.
> 
> 208           If false, the AddressBook and its contents should only be
> 209           displayed when the user explicitly requests it or to offer it for
> 210           the user to subscribe to.
> 
> is there a reason why this section does not use [RFC2119] [RFC8174] language?

Looking at it, I think these should be BCP SHOULDs; I'll update the draft.

Cheers,
Neil.