Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-jmap-contacts-09
review-ietf-jmap-contacts-09-artart-telechat-bray-2024-05-18-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-jmap-contacts
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Telechat Review
Team ART Area Review Team (artart)
Deadline 2024-05-28
Requested 2024-05-16
Authors Neil Jenkins
I-D last updated 2024-05-18
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Shivan Kaul Sahib (diff)
Artart Telechat review of -09 by Tim Bray (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -06 by Tim Bray (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tim Bray
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-jmap-contacts by ART Area Review Team Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/cM1tWDlTOXsPUjt03hR22b0vXB4
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2024-05-18
review-ietf-jmap-contacts-09-artart-telechat-bray-2024-05-18-00
Thanks for adding the Internationalization Considerations section, which
addresses the concern in my previous review that this issue needed more work. 
I have small issues:

1. There is a reference to "control characters" without any citation, and the
definition is not as obvious as one might think. A good reference is [UNICODE]
section 23.1, which may be summarized as "65 code points in the ranges
U+0000-U+001F ("C0 Controls") and U+0080-U+009F (“C1 Controls”), plus U+007F,
"DEL" 2. This section might benefit from a reference to RFC9413, which has a
thorough discussion of dealing with input data that is invalid for some reason.
3. There are 3 options when receiving a message with invalid characters: delete
them, replace them (Unicode provides U+FFFD for this purpose), or reject the
message. The draft mentions two of these but not the replacement option. Is it
never appropriate in the JMAP context?