Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-fetch-preview-03

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sun, 07 April 2019 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3327812036F; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 12:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 ew_qiZY2e1f4; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 12:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-f172.google.com (mail-it1-f172.google.com [209.85.166.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DED2812008B; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 12:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it1-f172.google.com with SMTP id y204so17420925itf.3; Sun, 07 Apr 2019 12:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SrYAgGFwgT8MBaKf/QRkFYxSn5YksKhvjJ+DO7FKBO8=; b=WBRlcCkrJ3ZntPQJzqwABkD21YkfectiKsv5gg5pRr0ofrzqakLeydZnxf6lth0tpL ET29IF1mDb+P16Yj3HAnBmvuqrgu+7/BeuMfgpoe6XKF0A6W/TD8bsWSDtjkiJBxtYbn 0FkYGuHeS9aoTbWQfceM21Dp/tJTtGQBdl6QggvXFalIXpgM37UwBFAy7aUEUrFBzIH/ Eb0+e1F4fn+Cs7rRYUiWdMrvN3pjb+Zw0+7aSxsxliPhahCzmubVt0HsIJjc4+B+oKB5 7afNxHtjQupgctS2c3OmpfvwKCKkMZBA9gsRWmin0UhAs8jvCMjzZS9o4Q4TSu8nbY4O 3OMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUup0O4Vwh9H3ir/y/ta0aFzZT3h8pS2BOZIMaZXj68llsvmPDy zfreFZF0PD+AeYATb8bExkqfpBc6VnAUom0euGo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxPkzDXraDPjkw0hnA6iX52tm6pCHvwbboJQZ8PU5LKKLSG9fNXl2MPEk7V3fO6ykoIYBDErWRKGMje5s1CuO8=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:4d12:: with SMTP id l18mr15999838itb.66.1554665431691; Sun, 07 Apr 2019 12:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CY4PR15MB1718F3DF156688CD7C1461079A530@CY4PR15MB1718.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR15MB1718F3DF156688CD7C1461079A530@CY4PR15MB1718.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2019 15:30:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJKg2f2piALz1wTFZihkL2gRcxksP31cWu2C5VKZhdhQiA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-extra-imap-fetch-preview.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-extra-imap-fetch-preview.all@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/gG8gdH2p7BO-nSIfPnPw_s6VDmQ>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat Call review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-fetch-preview-03
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 07 Apr 2019 19:30:34 -0000

Thanks, Meral, for the review.

> Minor issues:
> -It may be obvious to most but it would be good to also mention how encrypted email
> should be handle and what type of preview should be allowed if any

It's certainly easy to say something, and I'll leave it to the author
to decide whether to.  But, yes, it's obvious: if the mail is
encrypted, the server *can't* provide any meaningful preview.

One reason it might be useful to say something is that the end of
Section 3.2 makes a semantic distinction between a zero-length string
and NIL, so it might be useful to say which one is applicable to an
encrypted message.

Barry