JMAP Sharing
draft-ietf-jmap-sharing-09

General, nit:  I'm personally not a fan of the tagging in the text version to signal bold and italic text in the html version.  Especially when it occurs adjacent to formal naming/format language. 

General, very small nit:  A mix of Principal and principal occur throughout the document.  Pick one.  (I'm assuming the RFC editor will flag this)

Thanks to Susan Hares for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/nZz2fnG_Y5EFsQnoPvi1-q-_y7Y).
and to Yaron Sheffer for the SECDIR review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/RJWI2E_uRwrUcp18hFZV-LZ7WEw).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The IANA review of this document seems to not have concluded yet.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Reference [RFC7564] to RFC7564, which was obsoleted by RFC8264 (this may be on
purpose).

Section 2, paragraph 5
> ilable. If given, the value MUST be conform with the "addr-spec" syntax, as d
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
There may an error in the verb form "be conform".

Section 3.2, paragraph 2
>  on the data type in question. For example it might be the "title" property o
>                                    ^^^^^^^
A comma is probably missing here.

Section 4, paragraph 2
> The specification makes the lists sharable by referencing this document and d
>                                   ^^^^^^^^
Do not mix variants of the same word ("sharable" and "shareable") within a
single text.

draft-ietf-jmap-sharing-08 has addressed my comments.

Numerous sections use the bullet points and empty lines in way that  "mis-group" the items for me, making it difficult to parse. I almost raised this as a DISCUSS. An example:

*  accountIds: String[]

   A list of account ids. The Principal matches if any of the ids in this
   list are keys in the Principal's "accounts" property (i.e., if any of
   the account ids belong to the principal).
*  email: String

   The email property of the principal contains the given string.
*  name: String

To me this keeps reading as "A list of accounts..." belongs to "email: String".

IMHO, the proper way would be:

*  accountIds: String[]
   A list of account ids. The Principal matches if any of the ids in this
   list are keys in the Principal's "accounts" property (i.e., if any of
   the account ids belong to the principal).

*  email: String
   The email property of the principal contains the given string.

*  name: String
   stuff ...



Setion 3.6.1: What is the logic for "after" including the date and "before" not including the date?

Thank you to Susan Hares for the GENART review.

Thanks for the work done, it seems like a useful document.

Nevertheless, some non-blocking comments:

- the abstract and contents present this I-D as a "data model" but, in my own view, a data model does not include "methods" or actions. Suggest to augment the abstract to also mention "methods"
- even with a i18n section, section 2 allows for only one unknown-language version of "description"
- section 1.5.1 I wonder why the plural form is used in urn:ietf:params:jmap:principals as there can be only one principal

Hope this helps improving the document.

-éric

Thanks for the explanation and update.

Thanks for working on this specification, and thanks for adding the internationalization consideration section, this was helpful. No objection from transport layer considerations :-).