[imapext] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-08: (with COMMENT)

["Kathleen Moriarty" <[e-mail]>]

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your work on this extension, it seems useful, I just have a
few comments that can be left to the editors and AD to handle if I
disappear for maternity leave.  

I think the security considerations section could be a bit more clear on
the actual risks with this extension.  I think the flow of the section
can be improved to make these risks a bit more clear.

First, this extension lets you find out the limit for either the server
or individual mailboxes, so shouldn't the first part of the description
focus on a possible DoS filling up those resources?

I'm not sure why there is a focus on "without this extension".

Then, it's a common security programming practice to enforce size
limitations in code.  Why is there a focus on an attacker sending append
content that exceeds the allowable size rather than just saying that such
append content should be rejected?