IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Jmap] Proposal: split sharing mechanism from JMAP Calendars spec

Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmailteam.com> Wed, 16 December 2020 05:05 UTC

Return-Path: <neilj@fastmailteam.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 9C1CF3A0EEB for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 21:05:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmailteam.com header.b=TovcSJ8F; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=r5lNGafo
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 wxwHbH5kj3sl for <jmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 21:05:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93E563A0EE0 for <jmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Dec 2020 21:05:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BFD282B for <jmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 00:05:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imap7 ([10.202.2.57]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 16 Dec 2020 00:05:05 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fastmailteam.com; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:date:from:to:subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=fdWJ3u/ nFPqh9JwVuCQ88IH0e9hm278P3purKjWm2do=; b=TovcSJ8FvyeA1y7RYDR595i nMtDSxuFHRpFHIn5Rxb5IqafRarFytlfCOlQWAnhmeDoEcTlQa8o1O6GXP/tTnB8 uLdq3P9HUdYfPQhOCSKMlqueiWfSPOAhWKkAp5BVEskjuz1Oc0CizGYAmYoj53jN oSVPKo/IZL3BSKVsdCX9Y4WsMI+jQaV80Wstbn9rctiHH8mK0PPwTVGHhcQES3OV 6sZHZh/Bb66u3wpdlq02ORrRSs15Zpl3QsWJeOJaOO9qTQ3RNXY5Anxt9NWMZ2Z3 hHL21Xz3gYwsdse5EopoFJX/i7edtWKPdUP/kMLTMzEO3qjLjsDBTEtNnWj9ViQ= =
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=fdWJ3u /nFPqh9JwVuCQ88IH0e9hm278P3purKjWm2do=; b=r5lNGafoV+crQcbvR7TGKI 5WDqe4fj4CaasOPDOFHHrY/93c37u3nvS4BBnmHRWp51Ddg6DIGvHIy/gkp4cMi3 4JC3GEurFv/A4DlFI7Csg9tKcmeZOkI83LksaEb9lzrlDtqNOQGjF5w9KjQsCy/p 004bVggDrAfopsznOJ40lH/JVGiLn50qRcBhbgCo95Z7DahpRLUqbso32TfxD17X vZ1KJPWhR/HTCDu8A99cnRrwLaiO+vuVo61O5djiGcDjKYgurySNtsvpI5qu3cdu 6octhtgwwDsqC++Y2MZk200+d5RExqSMgxdCD8nv+AIYf1bTJI1/BAaBg02iUfeA ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:gJXZX1MNJ464mTXWmAMNsjmj07G7U-brQwPOc1Tr0wU1V9-GZdqLYg> <xme:gJXZX39aEyfvDAdwtA-6mJUH9Ii0SqZhcMEIpeGLx96MHis-LhkXCHrvWV8B13PqF hQMTL9OHzJGkg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrudeluddgjeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesrgdtreerreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdfpvghi lhculfgvnhhkihhnshdfuceonhgvihhljhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlthgvrghmrdgtohhmqe enucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpefhleehffetfeeuiedvkeegieejieeuhfdugfevleelgfev udetuedtleeigefgjeenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrh fuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhgvihhljhesfhgrshhtmhgr ihhlthgvrghmrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:gJXZX0T6_4zGJJP6req8kPeWhawy0IKN8gYuy-VMFxeTkZ2gVdxH9Q> <xmx:gJXZXxsTavexcYv2hfMdwNtybsELSFTw2ksfM02ceDxwBFSePWWI-A> <xmx:gJXZX9cofOj14L8bIydni_pERhP6kIckfFwY_s3P5dkt1hg4lWlZMg> <xmx:gZXZX3qvnpqsOVOiDScQG9YuYS_Yo7T0my0S0TrpTbuBiazCVowkFg>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id CB07118040A; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 00:05:04 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.1-61-gb52c239-fm-20201210.001-gb52c2396
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <2248c311-c24e-4c49-b5e2-e778ce60b307@beta.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <cef41da6-6bc5-9d36-a688-1d4f14eda08b@audriga.com>
References: <1e765f38-5a7a-4498-ab6a-8361671713f5@beta.fastmail.com> <cef41da6-6bc5-9d36-a688-1d4f14eda08b@audriga.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 16:05:04 +1100
From: Neil Jenkins <neilj@fastmailteam.com>
To: IETF JMAP Mailing List <jmap@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="67249321556e452aae163d0f61ab0dee"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/l67I86Oc8FqbENJm_8-iMugc4Sw>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] Proposal: split sharing mechanism from JMAP Calendars spec
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: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 05:05:09 -0000

OK, I've published an initial draft <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jenkins-jmap-sharing/> that splits off the principals/share notifications; I presume the next step is a call for adoption? I can then publish an update to the calendar spec that references this,

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020, at 19:21, Joris Baum wrote:
> I also do not expect most of the method calls to deviate all too much from what is defined in JMAP for Calendars. This is why I am planning on simply referencing the methods from JMAP for Calendars instead of copy+pasting the definition into JMAP for Tasks (and probably Notes as well). Maybe there is a better way that I am currently not seeing, or we could move even more into a "generic" spec?

I think it will be cleaner if JMAP Tasks is a sibling rather than dependent spec to JMAP Calendars, but it will be easier to discuss once we have a concrete initial draft.

Cheers,
Neil.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email