[Jmap] draft-ietf-jmap-smime reference to RFC 5257
"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 21 October 2021 14:45 UTC
Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 3B5A53A1785 for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 07:45:25 -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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 52SS675fc9TM for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 07:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x931.google.com (mail-ua1-x931.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::931]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D80C3A1781 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 07:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x931.google.com with SMTP id e10so1704723uab.3 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 07:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pxlNraflQ92wCBU3dsQwJHlD8zaHShnyVITA3dHRg0o=; b=WUZV0xMb0MbMxLGzbPxQRx7WdDjLcQGiTa8YXDSBLzqdO0YOUQx9nwd18KCz8dyX2J WuQtbMgALssZsCzKJ3UQAC5a+d9dA9fCWQQ8//mvPr2BxFSdwfipt67QUyf/14sAO8Rl uAmLzNGFxT+GcEtsnmRhpu0tyiZlWAhmnlabd9B3fsG0kYTQIMZNoyn8g+JV4Udtebdr I2dR7nVpB4OUc2pXRWwWmfwahg4dVZLtPVye9BEmQ+1fBPkF0mqZF72n3VbvHDFpcLV/ imA4UvUQ7cyBumKV2+qkC6X1b7Ej5btej2gugZyEMeaigBNQlfBkbPEjrkoXS6G7cOkH 9CzQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=pxlNraflQ92wCBU3dsQwJHlD8zaHShnyVITA3dHRg0o=; b=SoqIwtmHgNlsQWmvgqgRL+5ezhCgP/6MS5D+aQ1DpP8eNpk174cKnBv+icaAug44WG HBiAcSCy9clZbOf8p8lQ0ZACU9jZbSeSTy9svmLQdQlLB9bAR+2oZgS8KSbTiFzeqsW6 UdIIwqrGl/aammUJcDAGVWsWZDKdKWuEpNu8qz7RPtIqYFWVeM24uTaT3ii61sbcrBuT IBMDn7WmqN87KRWdADen9rWPn0QXtz0ST09hYswtFG00k8rhsgsAGXaxTjnW/I3aytJV 7w9Uu1m3MQFPts1LTuIAw4BWnykuQMM6svrrprUlXy7FrOzxwP+6V+hU4+xp6ivXBa4D uogw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5325l2FmvCEnSdAbrUquV1vFAa3RntMSy1eHLGa8GzmJ+gvGP6+v ei8KoZivT8e9U+3mYPZmfzi3/x1wSCZu8oNWqUIEwWHf9XQBNQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyEm7ZMD1LyBGTxy3zOya0YzMciznHW6gT5avf0BQK2k6SPZiV3kqqiO1h6J144z6fMml3lcsmM0xN1hIc4uT0=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:d38e:: with SMTP id b14mr6357026vsj.34.1634827519351; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 07:45:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 07:45:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYfeXSc7KedMvXJagZeG30y53yFCEYsTUnbh9MSE8H7MQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: jmap@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008f603705ceddf142"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/Zk84J_GJrDjwLOJyYzARxo3RRzo>
Subject: [Jmap] draft-ietf-jmap-smime reference to RFC 5257
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 14:45:34 -0000
Hi, me again, The IESG just evaluated draft-ietf-jmap-smime and the topic of its downref to RFC 5257 came up. There's nothing wrong with the downref, we just discussed the process in this particular case because there was prior talk that this RFC should be upgraded to the standards track. I seem to recall the vibe about this when I first asked about it was "Yes, we should do this, but not at this time." Accordingly, the IESG will be adding it to the downref registry. Just checking: Does JMAP plan to take up that work at some point, or is the sentiment more like "This is ripe for the standards track, and someone should do this someday, but not us"? Perhaps it's more aligned with EXTRA's charter? -MSK
- [Jmap] draft-ietf-jmap-smime reference to RFC 5257 Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [Jmap] draft-ietf-jmap-smime reference to RFC… Bron Gondwana
- Re: [Jmap] draft-ietf-jmap-smime reference to RFC… Alexey Melnikov