IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Jmap] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-jmap-smime-07

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Mon, 23 August 2021 11:23 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 600603A0101 for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 04:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 6Pstu_iJX74X for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 04:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from statler.isode.com (Statler.isode.com [62.232.206.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105EA3A0127 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 04:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1629717778; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=1QAiLSnc5hl5W1DdnPTRJb4Z/ua7Vje+F/6BiWbmFn4=; 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=MSJsbrEswj8SnZLtu5v7tcLbICPE1ReytCFQNiOE+yWfhpujbsr5sE2ZiI3aVPk44kK9iC 3sQfrfrITXvqi6aUbEbP7rCC3Rx2ZSG0NdxfZDbBuVG4nMN9Tr0xEh5cz13bUc8IpfGMmN etBbkOFI0TcTCJjEd/DSGVDXPxJZNiM=;
Received: from [192.168.0.5] ((unknown) [94.3.228.58]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <YSOFEQBawXfe@statler.isode.com>; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:22:57 +0100
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, jmap@ietf.org
References: <162937576809.22451.16366574696832488293@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAL0qLwYQeuJqyUXkWp7U-5aeg6xYup18fYWYWQ+tUGdovQhV2A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <c4735678-975b-7498-9cb5-b5244f93be5c@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:22:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYQeuJqyUXkWp7U-5aeg6xYup18fYWYWQ+tUGdovQhV2A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------BAFD7E286DEE9A48A138901B"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/Wk5hKPkaNVr6FhZYc0dP5SAXSvY>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-jmap-smime-07
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: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 11:23:06 -0000

Hi Murray,

Thank you for your review.

On 21/08/2021 23:24, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Hi all, here's my AD review for this short document:
>
> Please use the correct boilerplate text for BCP 14.  You've got the 
> old version here.
Fixed in my copy.
> I suggest using "specification" rather than "spec" (e.g., in Section 3).
Changed.
> And while I'm at it, it might be helpful to identify RFC 8620 as JMAP 
> at its first use in Section 2, because then in Section 3 you refer to 
> "the JMAP spec" but it's not clear which one that is.
Good point. I corrected that.
>
> In Section 4, for "smimeStatus", mapping unrecognized values to 
> "signal/failed" seems a curious choice.  Why not allow only "unknown"?
I think it depends on the application. If one wants to enforce presence 
of valid S/MIME signatures, anything which is unrecognized is 
"signed/failed" in a way. But I don't have a strong feeling and can 
change this.
> For Section 4, I suggest (but you don't have to) giving each property 
> a separate subsection.
I will have a look how much work this is. I might ask RFC Editor ;-).


Best Regards,

Alexey

> Otherwise this is in good shape.  The above things are minor enough 
> that you can just handle them as Last Call comments, and I'll go 
> request that now.
>
> -MSK
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 5:22 AM Bron Gondwana via Datatracker 
> <noreply@ietf.org <mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote:
>
>     Bron Gondwana has requested publication of
>     draft-ietf-jmap-smime-07 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the
>     JMAP working group.
>
>     Please verify the document's state at
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jmap-smime/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jmap-smime/>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jmap mailing list
> Jmap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jmap

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email