IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-jmap-contacts-06

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sat, 23 March 2024 12:00 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BF32C14F69D; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4K4_ssBdkI2J; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1BDAC14F5E2; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [202.4.29.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4V1yQt5MrSzDCcq; Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:58:51 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <b5fac088-9eb3-4ede-a266-f943aeaab076@stpeter.im>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:56:50 +1000
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-jmap-contacts.all@ietf.org, jmap@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4E9A8148-9EFE-4448-B94E-96FBDB6A2B9A@tzi.org>
References: <171112316193.8644.5801107423421446407@ietfa.amsl.com> <1C02FE5D-624B-4BBE-A7F3-91EDF54CDE4F@tzi.org> <b5fac088-9eb3-4ede-a266-f943aeaab076@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.500.171.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/WLSZzo5jYNEFNO4jP2Hwo55CWaE>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-jmap-contacts-06
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:00:41 -0000

Hi Peter,

> On 23. Mar 2024, at 10:47, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> 
> It's also true that we have not done as good a job of that due diligence as we could have (discouraged in part by the IAB statement [1] issued in 2015), but RFC 9233 remedied that oversight for IDNA and we're working on a similar Internet-Draft for PRECIS.

Thank you for updating me on the PRECIS efforts.

Given that we are discussing this in the context of draft-ietf-jmap-contacts:
Do you believe we should force this and similar specs to normatively reference PRECIS and use this to create more detailed definitions of the text-based data items?

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email