Re: [Jmap] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-jmap-smime-09: (with COMMENT)
Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 21 October 2021 14:14 UTC
Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: jmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E733A1735; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 07:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.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 JMPpYU2af-Qk; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 07:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A27FD3A1744; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 07:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1634825640; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=vHkOgiT7T/xbkqhOzacnP59251r7v8bqkU47Ebm+z0s=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=VsSh9BNlMFdw3Dy039KNsDbdhn3e7gRLK8/kC6xwVcxfu1RoWu8jm33lGUPpOQfilqcj94 qZp1ZhVFd1a1A3T9I4DP1RemGzIoCGnidq3CXFPm7vZKIUTwTLGjecD8BQENipO+tnUgWV X7Vnp0RO6s+r0vZAxvp5jiUc1DBodAA=;
Received: from [172.27.249.49] (connect.isode.net [172.20.0.43]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <YXF1qAABRyeh@waldorf.isode.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:14:00 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: jmap@ietf.org, draft-ietf-jmap-smime@ietf.org, jmap-chairs@ietf.org, brong@fastmailteam.com
References: <163472256651.12981.413656253938594590@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <f8c9831b-c94b-f1c8-1c83-0df16d851275@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:13:59 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
In-Reply-To: <163472256651.12981.413656253938594590@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/NMoXqKCi8Atmxodp60lj5n1yR_Q>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-jmap-smime-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: jmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: JSON Message Access Protocol <jmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jmap>, <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:jmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jmap>, <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:14:11 -0000
Hi Robert, On 20/10/2021 10:36, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi, > > I have to confess that I don't know IMAP, and hence my question may have an > obvious answer, but it is unclear to me whether a server supporting the > smimeverify capability implies that it SHOULD also support checking the S/MIME > signature at delivery time? If this is the case, should this be clarified, > perhaps in section 3? The intent was to require support of all attributes specified in the draft. > I.e., section 3 states: > Servers supporting > _this_ specification MUST add a property called > "urn:ietf:params:jmap:smimeverify" to the capabilities object. > > E.g., section 4.1 states: > > signed: S/MIME signed message, but the signature was not yet > verified. Some servers might not attempt to verify a signature > until a particular message is requested by the client. JMAP > servers compliant with this document SHOULD return "signed/ > verified" or "signed/failed" instead of this signature status. > > These two statements seem to imply that a server returning the smimeverify > capability SHOULD also support checking the S/MIME signature at delivery > because they SHOULD either return signed/verified or signed/failed for a > request for smimeStatusAtDelivery, which at least implies that they have > previously checked the signature when it was delivered. Is that was is > intended? I think you are saying that bare "signed" will never be returned if the server also supports smimeStatusAtDelivery. Good question, let me think about it and I will come back to you. Best Regards, Alexey
- [Jmap] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf… Robert Wilton via Datatracker
- Re: [Jmap] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Jmap] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-… Alexey Melnikov