IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity

Gren Elliot <fatkudu@gmail.com> Tue, 07 February 2017 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <fatkudu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59751294F9; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 15:02:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 ZvOciXkoJVkS; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 15:02:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb0-x235.google.com (mail-yb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::235]) (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 6EEDB1294EF; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 15:02:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb0-x235.google.com with SMTP id 123so40167746ybe.3; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 15:02:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=bKxMHOQmQma/B3fuAIlsHWChl4v1bRpJBBRMpN4xX88=; b=cjheKVYx0JA8d7gI6o9MshIsHOdZbs3fzcOwVlEXiVmrx9psge0LqICP8LcSnAVmX7 c1o3oWeA6PuUhCArfFiq/1ZlM6ZCiSiEFCtbwLmg7YzE/qNM7vXp9NbYld5gSAfV6hCJ Ut/Fha4v/E6ho7oM6L2032QPX5IF5dikG5owYNnXGhZ8YaGU1Z4SJohHW7OjmSONqyN8 QMVyANfX0ijG1t9XZ8jISjaHlA6GCZ6crZD4bn2kGkIlFcmzVZ0Cc/FXgUb2xSDyQ8Od YsQLPLiU8Cty0aoByaujd4yn3yGBtKQXbSp7NvaOleivSz2XVjx0nU0DaRzKaTfrX7O6 nCPQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bKxMHOQmQma/B3fuAIlsHWChl4v1bRpJBBRMpN4xX88=; b=Uh97TyEPwBXkW5OXnKgDdf8ZNLrpHOk+/k56vz/be3gVKFE5jFTjsCLx6heIWDYQDk FgGLpYnanE1fRXgNwZk4f94yTR39hLL6gOc+UfkVzXStzX3+8mgCu4kDUTv8NIjlahcb ni1CTXI8aMeWfxt6DZwOSp54EbSdYyupD59DehGNcDQb/V+dfxObvJANwB66sXGtqF8p PshC0udCpdQZIZDdiorx8HZd7d9IvCzFP3aFAj/S3ihtgg7Sx2vAvC2514PIoxXkaaKR 7BXX6ABsfljtXlf/6GRCMJa0KdeDgaljWvPd7k2KLBrxT5sQ0Y7VN6Vdx1VBt+0RYdwa k2CQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kWGajfkmTi232tJVAuleJvj1GsJPTbgmHhk6AzxZk9SgIZ/AoexjzLXJTw1vtgP9PiJOUAXzWGyVhE4A==
X-Received: by 10.37.173.83 with SMTP id l19mr13330026ybe.84.1486508574695; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 15:02:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.250.7 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 15:02:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.13.250.7 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 15:02:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <b83068ad-602b-8feb-f808-35befd13ae29@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAMQk0F-6CFLHKvTxSaPV20Lp-hVOSSk_WrHOGq6-LOUO8aDNww@mail.gmail.com> <b83068ad-602b-8feb-f808-35befd13ae29@dcrocker.net>
From: Gren Elliot <fatkudu@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 23:02:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMQk0F8BFZj5LOra=PmpPryc5831Tnsy52kwFugr8xfY8+OvPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [Jmap] WG Review: JSON Mail Access Protocol (jmap) - reducing configuration complexity
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045ec9f88d03930547f8bf74"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TLDIEp9L0S80aYENNi3vHniMJ4I>
Cc: jmap@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: fatkudu@gmail.com
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 23:02:57 -0000

In answer to the UI question below, for the simple reason that you don't
know whether the same password applies, because the standards have
deliberately separated them and there is no standard provided which can
convey the information that in this case, they're the same. You could
perhaps just try the same credentials for each service but that would be a
clear leak of private information if they weren't the same.

On 7 Feb 2017 20:12, "Dave Crocker" <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:


But how large a community is this and why is this problem not mitigated
simply by having the user interface take one password specification and map
it to the two, underlying (and existing) protocols?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email