[Extra] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-list-metadata-01

Yoav Nir via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sun, 10 March 2024 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: extra@ietf.org
Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E25C14F60F; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 15:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Yoav Nir via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-extra-imap-list-metadata.all@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.7.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <171010980889.48145.14032279935319209023@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 15:30:08 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/yLKS614arrY030GYrRUmLnMvrAc>
Subject: [Extra] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-list-metadata-01
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <extra.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/extra/>
List-Post: <mailto:extra@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 22:30:09 -0000

Reviewer: Yoav Nir
Review result: Has Nits

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.

The document is short and well-written. The security considerations section is
also short enough for me to copy it here:

   This specification does not introduce any additional security
   concerns beyond those described in [RFC5258].

RFC5258 is the RFC that describes LIST extensions in general. However, this
document does not just describe a generic extension. It describes an extension
to make the LIST command response contain the mailbox metadata. RFC 5464 which
describes mailbox metadata has a Security Considerations section, and its
content applies here.  So I suggest to replace "those described in [RFC5258]."
with "those described in [RFC5258] and [RFC5464]."