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

[cketti <[e-mail]>]

On 11.06.20 14:09, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> You raise pretty much the same objection that I have to implicit sets
> in the first place.  They shouldn't exist.  So what would it look like
> to have an EXPLICIT set?
>
>        [[ "MDN/send", {
>          "accountId": "ue150411c",
>          "identityId": "I64588216",
>          "send": {
>            "k1546": {
>              "forEmailId": "Md45b47b4877521042cec0938",
>              "subject": "Read receipt for: World domination",
>              "textBody": "This receipt shows that the email has been
>                  displayed on your recipient's computer. There is no
>                  guaranty it has been read or understood.",
>              "reportingUA": "linagora.com; OpenPaaS",
>              "disposition": {
>                "actionMode": "manual-action",
>                "sendingMode": "MDN-sent-manually",
>                "type": "displayed"
>              }
>            }
>          },
> *"onSuccessUpdateEmail": { "#k1546": { "keywords/$mdnsent": true***
> *}***
> *}*
>        }, "0" ]]
>
> This would match the semantics of EmailSubmission/set, which this is
> kind of a special case of in some ways, and would then mean that
> there's never any need to worry about the automatic tasks that the
> server takes, because it never does.  Yes, you need to hard-code that
> logic into clients, but it strongly matches with my hard earned belief
> that automatic magical behaviour on the server is bad - the client
> should explicitly ask for side-effects.
>
> I would also put a SHOULD or even MUST in the spec that the server
> reject an MDN/send which doesn't result in setting the keyword
> $mdnsent on the server in that case.

I like that. I agree that being explicit is better.