Subject: [Jmap] Comments on draft-ietf-jmap-websocket-03

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 12:55:17 -0800

A few minor comments on the websocket-03 draft, currently in WGLC:

- Section 2: I'm not sure what the reference [1] is about (and 
correspondingly, the URIs section 8.3). I'd suggest leaving that out; it 
seems to be confusing the idnits tool as well.

- Section 3: supportsWebSocketPush: The value is shown as "Boolean", 
which would lead me to perhaps believe that it would be something like 
"supportsWebSocketPush": "true" while the example doesn't have quotes 
around "true". My inclination would be to leave off the quotes around 
Boolean, but I'm not a JSON syntax expert by any stretch of the 
imagination so decide accordingly.

- Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3: requestId is shown as optional in the 
response, and may only be included if there was a requestId in the 
request. If there is a requestId in the request, should the requestId be 
mandatory in the response? I think it should.

- Next time you're making an update, please change the reference to 
jmap-mail to RFC 8621.

-Jim

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 09:29:31 -0500

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the review.  Responses inline.

On 11/4/19 3:55 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
> correspondingly, the URIs section 8.3). I'd suggest leaving that out; 
> it seems to be confusing the idnits tool as well.

That was a function of using an <eref> for BCP 14.  I've removed that 
and just used plaintext instead.

> imagination so decide accordingly.

I'm no JSON syntax expert either, but the use here is consistent with 
RFCs 8620 and 8621, so I think I'll keep it as-is.

> request. If there is a requestId in the request, should the requestId 
> be mandatory in the response? I think it should.

I agree.  I've changed this to be "(optional; MUST be returned if given 
in the request)"

> - Next time you're making an update, please change the reference to 

Done.

-- 

Ken Murchison
Cyrus Development Team
FastMail US LLC