Subject: [Webpush] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-webpush-vapid-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 10:20:21 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-webpush-vapid-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-webpush-vapid/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

*Very* minor nits:

1: I'm reviewing both this document and draft-ietf-webpush-encryption (both of
which have Martin Thomson as an author) -- these use different capitalizations
for many terms, for example "user agent" vs "User Agent" -- this document
references RFC8030, which has  these lower-case, and so I suspect that it is
draft-ietf-webpush-encryption which should change, but I figured I'm mention it
here as well.

2: Section 7. Acknowledgements
"This document would have been much worse than it currently is if not for the
contributions ..." Once published as an RFC, it is cast in stone. I support
your the above, but think you should remove "currently", so perhaps: "This
document would have been much worse if not for the contributions ..."

Again, these are tiny nits, I don't have enough knowledge of the topic to make
more useful comments :-P

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:22:21 +1000

Capitalization here was fine, but I trimmed the "currently".  Thanks.