Re: [Jmap] draft-ietf-jmap-mdn-06

[cketti <[e-mail]>]

On 10.06.20 14:45, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>> *3.1 Sending an MDN*
>>
>> The Email/set example is incorrect.  Since the implicit request is a
>> patch to "keywords/$mdnsent", a server would not be expected to echo
>> the full value of the keywords property in the result, since it
>> didn't unilaterally change it.  I would expect this response:
>>
>>      [ "Email/set", {
>>        "accountId": "ue150411c",
>>        "oldState": "23",
>>        "newState": "42",
>>        "updated": {
>>          "Md45b47b4877521042cec0938": {}
>>        }
>>      }, "0" ]]
>>
>> Where "updated" maps the emailId from the forEmailId property to an
>> empty object.
>>

This would be annoying for clients. They'd have to hard-code what the
implicit Email/set looks like.

It also makes it harder to change what the implicit Email/set call looks
like in a future version of the spec. If an additional property was to
be modified it would have to be included in the response to be backward
compatible to this spec. Then you'd have to come up with a new way to
specify an implicit request ("include these changed properties in the
response, but not those").

I do realize that including the modified keyword in the response makes
things more complicated for the server. But to me it feels like the
better alternative.