IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a new WG: JMAP

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 07 November 2016 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489D112989F; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:46:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497] autolearn=ham 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 mI3v8jDAmhKX; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:46:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B812129887; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 10:46:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1c3owT-000Faz-Ds; Mon, 07 Nov 2016 13:46:49 -0500
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 13:46:44 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <F5D05F4011CAC0BD78BB2F46@JcK-HP8200>
In-Reply-To: <01Q7166TP70G011H9Q@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <1478539079.1706686.780110457.75B1F9CF@webmail.messagingengine.com> <a786d82d-7134-c7bc-24ef-5dfb56e7bbac@isode.com> <01Q7166TP70G011H9Q@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imapext/1zqrSvVKvrKBH1Fo3yTWIpyrJ7U>
Cc: ietf-smtp@ietf.org, "'imapext@ietf.org'" <imapext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [imapext] [ietf-smtp] Fwd: Request to form a new WG: JMAP
X-BeenThere: imapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IMAP extensions <imapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/imapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:imapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 18:46:53 -0000

In addition to my earlier comments, I agree with everything in
Ned's note (the two sets of comments seem to be complementary).
Also, please note:

--On Monday, November 07, 2016 10:05 -0800 Ned Freed
<ned.freed@mrochek.com> wrote:

> Without getting into whether or not this is in general a good
> idea, I want to
> note that the proposal as written is self-contradictory,
> making it very
> difficult to evaluate. In particular:
>...

>> - SMTP SUBMISSION
>> [RFC 4409]

4409 has been obsolete for five years now, implying that the
submitters of this proposal have some reading and other homework
to do.   RFC 6409 should be the reference here.

> And SUBMIT is in play.
>...

In addition, I'd add to Ned's comment about end to end
encryption the observation that it is particularly important for
webmail and similar models because users or many such services
may have reason to not trust their email service providers (at
one end or the there) with message content.

     john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email