Re: [Jmap] Benjamin Schwartz comments on draft-ietf-jmap-websocket-05

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Wed, 18 March 2020 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
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 DB16F3A19CD for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 11:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=fastmail.fm header.b=S9gvGI1o; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Fx/MuOv5
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 XpXRcCacF1kh for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 11:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FBBA3A19CA for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 11:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20FD65CA; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 14:18:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap21 ([10.202.2.71]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 18 Mar 2020 14:18:58 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to:cc :subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=3/sMYjNl5frIXm6rbai1NqzdZ9FVilD uQdse7KirlHI=; b=S9gvGI1oMpEzxnW7Iyy0MIDQCxrE+01CJ2w/KN7M5KqMQjn Ri0cneXTWO5jVWB3QOtzEGDJKtS3ZgQC9vsQ7tKUk0jkEq9zEKvltqNpQDEzCa4G 2jAq96nqqSFt8bp7YfnYtDcyWxVyqEZj0OqXs5YUpJNcY3FhPs64ovS2MQqzUfKs 2UURgE4jYXhhDtexJOZMybXXQdbPCdfMAgPw5pzZObmI6mNkip5qJ5F7tOyum5xc iZNEb3A6InVK4FY+qZ7LEn7jABJUFD1nZss/CVD2TXnRmAHPga5XNmhNXp2UUeOF sZx/2/n8lA5eqEL/2Hg6gnCxoc/wSgWpfgI+sdw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=3/sMYj Nl5frIXm6rbai1NqzdZ9FVilDuQdse7KirlHI=; b=Fx/MuOv5mLAN4pOj0Cowh9 +6vn6ujKnmw8VezpLAsolRH68YREBXDQxO2bjOlhj//9U37NcLaInK36P5GXATDm UadZ30F6MBPcGiiUxDY2jxEZPjSCbga+c4ydV7vuh2z8TjuFaMqL+fxNbPZM+ril QuJq0VKtXPScqB2IPkI7Eftam12xtSr5hPDuhcG4j5dnU+cs+5bPJGT5nnWYFC8m lgo3hQ3zqaDydEOhPk6WsR0rrkUU2VReUhTWpT3it4FiPFgr2ox5Lueuvoh6iJa+ QeS+cADNBouKpmHISmdsUJZyYGB+wRSi/UNpELh6jPYwFh+75CPsS9Cx4ABD6g2g ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:EWZyXjD0OOVc7YlBxju6CZfSOHL0SBySogxM9iuK8P3e-AgY8bZZ6g>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrudefjedguddtgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsegrtderreerreejnecuhfhrohhmpedftehl vgigvgihucfovghlnhhikhhovhdfuceorggrmhgvlhhnihhkohhvsehfrghsthhmrghilh drfhhmqeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhm pegrrghmvghlnhhikhhovhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdhfmh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:EWZyXg7Zz86KdWGqK5pYzZ1YIJu0H3hrZFOpOQvzHH5tp0aISDB30g> <xmx:EWZyXo4mWi9zzVZ5Y4GyESrSIkNbnXA8vwtvAEbd1-leU9b00BLvzA> <xmx:EWZyXrw7WvTP_7NhyL5kVHzuz4a-Tq3NV4UwGmcrRfWRva3pAdq3WQ> <xmx:EWZyXvbjcaUwixdPFcfkyv5d1wMsUlEdG0XhDSfX6npourP4uqvXqg>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 2DEFC660069; Wed, 18 Mar 2020 14:18:57 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-991-g5a577d3-fmstable-20200305v3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <cb07eaba-3d93-4f5c-926b-3d985ced6736@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7b28083d-a8ad-c7bb-838b-bd2cef6173d5@fastmail.com>
References: <0f7388d8-b420-469f-8d5a-da5fb0bcf27a@www.fastmail.com> <2cc03bd6-48e3-3953-f9ba-59fbc26054a7@fastmail.com> <CAHbrMsCkCxkDHy92N1uFM7sG=DUTS9R+iQihyxU0xPt29jF7gg@mail.gmail.com> <533b2c05-eda9-48df-8564-50e14e43acc3@www.fastmail.com> <7b28083d-a8ad-c7bb-838b-bd2cef6173d5@fastmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 18:18:36 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: Ken Murchison <murch@fastmail.com>, Benjamin Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Cc: jmap@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="a439a0fc38d04d16994468de68a48b68"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/PTQMH1w6v5vP5WZG4cSCVUo5iDc>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] Benjamin Schwartz comments on draft-ietf-jmap-websocket-05
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: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 18:19:13 -0000

Hi Ken,

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020, at 6:03 PM, Ken Murchison wrote:
> On 3/18/20 1:23 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> Hi Ken,
>> 
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, at 8:02 PM, Ben Schwartz wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 3:16 PM Ken Murchison <murch@fastmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/21/20 7:45 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> 
>>>>> ## Section 4.3.2


Is “@type” now required on all Request/Response/Problem Details objects everywhere?  Does this update RFC 8620?
>>>>> 
>>>> 

>>>> Alexey, I'll let you decide is this document updates RFC 8620.

>>> My point is that the text is unclear. I presume that the line "This specification adds two extra arguments to the Request object" doesn't apply to all Request objects, but only to Request objects that are sent over a WebSocket. However, the text doesn't say that. I would suggest noting that this specification uses an extended object encoding from RFC 8620, so that the distinction can be described explicitly.
>> I think clarifying whether this is a generic extension or WebSocket specific, would be useful.
> 

> draft -06 has language like the following for each object type:

> The specification extends the Request object with two additional
   arguments when used over a WebSocket:
This is sufficient. Thank you for checking.

Best Regards,
Alexey