Re: [Gen-art] [imapext] FW: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-07
Jayantheesh S B <j.sb@sea.samsung.com> Mon, 28 December 2015 15:05 UTC
Return-Path: <j.sb@sea.samsung.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E1F1A0119; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 07:05:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.599
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kyiC9JMH3ydP; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 07:05:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wguard02.sdsamerica.net (bware2.sdsamerica.net [206.67.236.192]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3906C1A0115; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 07:05:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Jayantheesh S B <j.sb@sea.samsung.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Peter Yee <peter@akayla.com>
Thread-Topic: [imapext] FW: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-07
Thread-Index: AQHRQR5VbaW9hxWFkk+Ejww9gc2aL57gf3SA
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:05:21 +0000
Message-ID: <ab85929428af4712a27dc35e14c76363@SEAMBX01.sea.samsung.com>
References: <027701d140e4$c1337070$439a5150$@akayla.com> <028001d140e9$565a4850$030ed8f0$@akayla.com> <CALaySJK1_TG7Gzgc4YrqLWfTm_uYQOK0LorcD5NFyL+RoJ0i7w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJK1_TG7Gzgc4YrqLWfTm_uYQOK0LorcD5NFyL+RoJ0i7w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: none
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/6wxhw9bAKQGHzYzUnXlldpNwS3U>
Cc: "draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension.all@ietf.org>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "imapext@ietf.org" <imapext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [imapext] FW: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-07
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:05:30 -0000
Hi Peter/Barry, Thanks for the detailed review. We will go through the review comments and update the draft accordingly. Regards, Jay -----Original Message----- From: imapext [mailto:imapext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2015 10:18 PM To: Peter Yee Cc: draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension.all@ietf.org; General Area Review Team; imapext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [imapext] FW: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-07 Hi, Peter, and thanks for the review. I'm adding the working group mailing list here, so they have a record of this. My comments below. > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by > the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like > any other last call comment. For background on Gen-ART, please see > the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> > > Document: draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-07 > Reviewer: Peter Yee > Review Date: December 27, 2015 > IETF LC End Date: January 1, 2016 > IESG Telechat date: TBD > > Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as a standards > track RFC, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. > [Ready with nits] > > The draft describes an extension to IMAP4v1 that allows a server to > signal a maximum message upload size limit. > > Most of nits noted are linguistic, although there's a minor, repeated > mistake in the ABNF that's critical to fix. > > Comments/Questions: > > Section 1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: the claim that this extension > allows a server to avoid processing overly large messages (or > attachments) is only true if a client implements and honors the > extension. A malicious client could still upload large messages and > cause the server to process the message up to the point where it > exceeds the server's limit. While these overly large uploads would > not be saved to disk, the server would still have to process them up > to a point in order to determine that they should be discarded and a > TOOBIG response returned. Other mechanisms would be needed to fend off malicious clients that persist in such uploads. Indeed; as with any IMAP extension, this helps only compliant client-server combinations. I think the Security Considerations adequately covers the issue of a malicious client. > Page 6, Section 6, 2nd full sentence: In light of the last paragraph > of section 5 indicating that the number is a fixed maximum value, how > would submitting a little too large message work? Why is the server > being lenient here? The point is to warn against that sort of leniency. One might think that if you set a limit of, say, 2 MB, that you might act harshly to a client that tries to post 6 MB, but not be so strict when a client posts 2.1 MB. The text warns that such leniency might be used to enable an attack. > Nits: I noted in my AD review (posted to the imapext mailing list) that the document is in need of a significant review for English corrections. In discussion of that, we decided that the RFC Editor will have to handle that: the authors have done a great job on this, but are not native English writers, and we don't have natives at the ready to help. Authors, Peter has provided, below, a good list to help you with this. If you can incorporate the changes he suggests, it'll help a lot, and the RFC Editor can deal with any that remain. One that I need to call out that's buried in Peter's list, the one he mentions about ABNF (and this one is my fault, as I provided the current version of ABNF and made the typo myself): > Page 5, Section 5, ABNF: change "/=" to "=/" for the definitions of > "capability", "status-att", and "status-att-val". Yes. I think I make that goof regularly. Sigh. Thanks for catching it. Barry > Page 1, Abstract, 1st sentence: change "mail" to "message". Delete "of". > > Page 2, Section 1, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: change "mail" to "message". > > Page 2, Section 1, 1st paragraph, 4th sentence: change "mail" to "message". > Change "attachment" to "attachments". Actually, make it "messages". > Page 2, Section 1, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: insert "a" before "maximum". > Insert "the" before "email". > > Page 2, Section 1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: change "server side" > to "server-side". > > Page 3, Section 2, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: insert "the" before > the first "APPENDLIMIT". Insert "the" before "authenticated". > > Page 3, Section 2, 1st paragraph, last sentence: insert "An" at the > beginning of the sentence. > > Page 3, Section 2, 1st paragraph after (a), 1st sentence: delete "the" > before "mailboxes". > > Page 3, Section 2, 1st paragraph after (a), 2nd sentence: insert "the" > before "same". > > Page 3, Section 2, 3rd paragraph after (b), 1st sentence: insert "an" > before "APPENDLIMIT". Insert "a" before "STATUS". > > Page 3, Section 2, 3rd paragraph after (b), 2nd sentence: change "New" > to "A new". Change "mailbox specific" to "mailbox-specific". > > Page 3, Section 2, 3rd paragraph after (b), 3rd sentence: insert "to" > before "section". Insert "the" before "response". > > Page 3, Section 2, last paragraph, 1st sentence: insert "An" at the > beginning of the sentence. Delete "kind of". > > Page 3, Section 2, last paragraph, 2nd sentence: insert "a" before "client". > Insert "the" before "advertised". > > Page 3, Section 3, heading: change "Mailbox specific" to "Mailbox-specific". > > Page 3, Section 3, 1st paragraph: insert "the" before "CAPABILITY". > > Page 4, Section 3.1, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: insert "a" before > "STATUS". > > Page 4, Section 3.1, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: insert "An" before "IMAP". > Insert "a" before "STATUS". Insert "an" before "APPENDLIMIT". Change > "mailbox specific" to "mailbox-specific". > > Page 4, Section 3.1, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: delete the comma. > > Page 4, Section 3.2, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: delete the comma. Actually, this can go wither way, and because of the lengths of the clauses here, I think the comma should stay. We can let the RFC Editor weigh in on it with their final edits. > Page 5, Section 4, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: insert "a" before "client". > Change "mail" to "message". Change "to" to "for" before "that". > Insert "the" before "server". > > Page 5, Section 4, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: insert "to" before > "[RFC4469]". Change "(4) to "4". > > Page 5, Section 4, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: change "Client" to "A > client". Insert "the" before "maximum". > > Page 5, Section 4, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: insert "to" before > "section". > > Page 5, Section 5, ABNF: change "/=" to "=/" for the definitions of > "capability", "status-att", and "status-att-val". > > Page 6, Section 8: append a comma after "Long". > _______________________________________________ imapext mailing list imapext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-imapapn… Peter Yee
- Re: [Gen-art] FW: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Gen-art] [imapext] FW: Gen-ART LC review of … Jayantheesh S B
- Re: [Gen-art] [imapext] FW: Gen-ART LC review of … Jayantheesh S B
- Re: [Gen-art] [imapext] FW: Gen-ART LC review of … Peter Yee
- Re: [Gen-art] [imapext] FW: Gen-ART LC review of … Jayantheesh S B
- Re: [Gen-art] [imapext] FW: Gen-ART LC review of … Peter Yee
- Re: [Gen-art] [imapext] FW: Gen-ART LC review of … Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Gen-art] [imapext] FW: Gen-ART LC review of … Jayantheesh S B
- Re: [Gen-art] [imapext] FW: Gen-ART LC review of … S Moonesamy
- Re: [Gen-art] [imapext] FW: Gen-ART LC review of … Jayantheesh S B
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ima… Jari Arkko