[Jmap] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-jmap-smime-09: (with COMMENT)

Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 11 October 2021 11:28 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: jmap@ietf.org
Delivered-To: jmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522873A0E45; Mon, 11 Oct 2021 04:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Lars Eggert via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-jmap-smime@ietf.org, jmap-chairs@ietf.org, jmap@ietf.org, brong@fastmailteam.com, brong@fastmailteam.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.39.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-ID: <163395169066.1176.11296212131462393643@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 04:28:11 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/hCk9gUZu86xiO3JD0ZO-WaljCg8>
Subject: [Jmap] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-jmap-smime-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: jmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 11 Oct 2021 11:28:12 -0000

Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-jmap-smime-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Section 6. , paragraph 3, comment:
>    Constant recalculation of S/MIME signature status can result in a
>    Denial-of-Service condition.  For that reason, it is RECOMMENDED to
>    cache results of signature verification for 10 minutes.

Agree with the motivation to cache, but 10 minutes seems pretty arbitrary. Could
a sentence be added giving a bit of context?

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

Section 4.1. , paragraph 13, nit:
> ignature. (I.e., this property is non null only when the corresponding "smime
>                                   ^^^^^^^^
This expression is usually spelled with a hyphen.

Section 4.1. , paragraph 13, nit:
>  Each string in the array is a human readable description (in the language sp
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This word is normally spelled with a hyphen.

Section 4.1. , paragraph 14, nit:
>  (See Section 3.8 of [RFC8620] in regards to how this is affected by the lan
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Use "in regard to", "with regard to", or more simply "regarding".

Section 4.1. , paragraph 15, nit:
> s response property to be set to a non null value, if an S/MIME signature exi
>                                    ^^^^^^^^
This expression is usually spelled with a hyphen.