[JMAP] Re: Question about shareWith property in RFC 9670 vs RFC 8621
Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmailteam.com> Wed, 01 October 2025 05:46 UTC
Return-Path: <neilj@fastmailteam.com>
X-Original-To: jmap@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: jmap@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6AB6BA7D5E for <jmap@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Sep 2025 22:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.798 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmailteam.com header.b="W9fJvsxR"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b="Brl5b+Eg"
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Fetyej2-qca for <jmap@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Sep 2025 22:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fout-a1-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a1-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.144]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDF4F6BA7D57 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Sep 2025 22:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phl-compute-02.internal (phl-compute-02.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE259EC019C for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Oct 2025 01:46:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from phl-imap-15 ([10.202.2.104]) by phl-compute-02.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 01 Oct 2025 01:46:22 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fastmailteam.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from :from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1759297582; x= 1759383982; bh=f5YSCAvzKpAILc4C4F1SUYaJAfPBeoMAPJOM5Xv7YAY=; b=W 9fJvsxRhg+sIfnl6wrQg2sWxiGhrHIxMqbI2M9sId9jIGdNKGJzYxeDifiblKZ9J uc7ybEftjFgDfI5OnVl65xwBHNrwFGCPrTVHI/I/ObYIWznAZNQt76VpzlUDP2eC SdsXYYP0vw0zeqWjGTe5hG3bZYnx+fkUYkt28miuUWUky9FOdytqu5Nk//7leJfg 6VTIS4Z5wAvvqVKU67uoXpjQElrCGH5lsE6eprmP/45odkIImp+cjMIRrpteJ3uh SIrT4Tb+e+1s16VweaYxQIJ6EO2X63Wc26FF0SFG/3kKA2+DDfwPzFLSYbD1pqcP a25uuV/fxQaPvzvqx7dPw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1759297582; x=1759383982; bh=f5YSCAvzKpAILc4C4F1SUYaJAfPBeoMAPJO M5Xv7YAY=; b=Brl5b+EgXXFr+YLjUo0D9oVlKgpMmC/SBSXIF44G/8a52kJ+CJi kAKdzKqOBedHHoaH/ccLuypysV5kg8JgGrGXyihbyfyH2e7Ka5xNEnpwGHo1QdvV JU0njJixfC1W1AEKSJ7+UXYQTpYdJaMdyfI8Yr+oeWsA8AR8JgIq6S+b0jBYmkqR Hl3f+y5Ex0ht8ZT9inE7s6mOkyRXrgMGRAGDz0bkcJAP8lEllCNEL8NaVTJwr7UW vhFD7B5loQjKa59Dbi5Yc4KfcscMtLQnpErFbxwzwX7eJd/ADn/kL6Fd5S9GDhyY p92GEUcdd7fK914Jch7WObi4zV9Zg4XR/Yg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:LsDcaORXqwpUzMCdCYLVApDZWVDgRSVkMESzR18QGRhJ5TUe4WblqA> <xme:LsDcaOkXqhXeZRkULH4_7vnj5espoZiZ5ct-DM1-qxwi8RK0CJpdHAmvbJmV9DJbt 4qoJRl4VT1631fBIUoV-Qwok2vERF-_BOWyhJS0Ir3VBfUIHQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggdekvdefgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpefoggffhffvkfgjfhfutgesrgdtreerredtjeenucfhrhhomhepfdfpvghilhculfgv nhhkihhnshdfuceonhgvihhljhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlthgvrghmrdgtohhmqeenucggtf frrghtthgvrhhnpedtheffjefhhfettddugfelfefggfetjedvhfdvtdfhudfhvdfggfef ffdthfefgfenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhroh hmpehnvghilhhjsehfrghsthhmrghilhhtvggrmhdrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohep uddpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepjhhmrghpsehivghtfhdrohhrgh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:LsDcaH27_ger1I-atRWDGCOEuSIR7tf1OEtnZ6i-cwQJAbSYGvIK5Q> <xmx:LsDcaNA2xCdll9ouuuivMhJmKpf_slxp3I9D22-ZaMh1dBm4L36AvQ> <xmx:LsDcaNihrJukIUi3JH-N3ISZpkMMAy2j09bkwVx9S7zIDwqgvMU__Q> <xmx:LsDcaB96fk3lzss0W-QE8ROzvuOIdsZBBA-f1RlOXeDCMTCu2W3rmQ> <xmx:LsDcaBtfNjowKh1H4aDohF2bvEI_zlAH2Uw-K_5NTjUQrV-VdUU4ESTi>
Feedback-ID: ibc614277:Fastmail
Received: by mailuser.phl.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 93AB278026F; Wed, 1 Oct 2025 01:46:22 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-ThreadId: Awm-dMTVje9F
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2025 15:46:02 +1000
From: Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmailteam.com>
To: IETF JMAP Mailing List <jmap@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <37d6ab50-361b-4186-8edd-580171d91084@dogfoodapp.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <FEA43A8C-F1A5-4EB8-A87F-40DCC8ADAF84@stalw.art>
References: <FEA43A8C-F1A5-4EB8-A87F-40DCC8ADAF84@stalw.art>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="82c2d0e5af7e4783b609ddd39bb2ca02"
Message-ID-Hash: ACO2MNU6HM3ADJV4YA47IWHNLJIPRW3Q
X-Message-ID-Hash: ACO2MNU6HM3ADJV4YA47IWHNLJIPRW3Q
X-MailFrom: neilj@fastmailteam.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-jmap.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [JMAP] Re: Question about shareWith property in RFC 9670 vs RFC 8621
List-Id: JSON Meta Access Protocol <jmap.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/k6XRr9ul5PRTTbv5hWsonmAvWd8>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jmap>
List-Help: <mailto:jmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:jmap-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:jmap@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:jmap-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:jmap-leave@ietf.org>
Hi Mauro, Apologies for the delay replying, I've been on vacation. > I’m currently working on an implementation of RFC 9670, and I’ve run into something I’d like to clarify. In Section 4 (Framework for Shared Data), it says that shareable data types MUST define the properties isSubscribed, myRights, and shareWith. That all makes sense, but when I went back to RFC 8621, I couldn’t find a definition for the shareWith property. You haven't missed anything! There's no current standard for *setting* ACLs for mailboxes via JMAP. It would be fairly trivial to define as an extension (basically just adding the *shareWith* property in accordance with RFC9670), but it's not currently defined. Perhaps you'd like to contribute a document for this? Cheers, Neil.
- [JMAP] Question about shareWith property in RFC 9… Mauro De Gennaro
- [JMAP] Re: Question about shareWith property in R… Neil Jenkins
- [JMAP] Re: Question about shareWith property in R… Mauro De Gennaro