Re: [Jmap] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-jmap-mdn-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Raphaël Ouazana <rouazana@linagora.com> Thu, 10 December 2020 18:24 UTC
Return-Path: <rouazana@linagora.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 9C7873A1185; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:24:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 XseQFjj3tEhC; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:24:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.linagora.com (smtp.linagora.com [54.36.8.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98AAB3A1195; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:24:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.37] (unknown [91.168.246.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.linagora.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02BB1484B0; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 19:23:56 +0100 (CET)
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: jmap@ietf.org, brong@fastmailteam.com, draft-ietf-jmap-mdn@ietf.org, jmap-chairs@ietf.org
References: <160193187289.4946.17482930539468511819@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-LINAGORA-Copy-Delivery-Done: 1
From: Raphaël Ouazana <rouazana@linagora.com>
Message-ID: <3490c237-bb9e-62df-9282-413ba44a1084@linagora.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 19:23:33 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <160193187289.4946.17482930539468511819@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jmap/pmzM3Ox04htZlhUDnB2qFIktyFU>
Subject: Re: [Jmap] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-jmap-mdn-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 10 Dec 2020 18:24:27 -0000
Le 05/10/2020 à 23:04, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker a écrit : > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This should be quite easy to resolve; I'm just not sure yet which > direction the resolution will be. > Discussed on the list, this should has been fixed in the last draft. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Section 1 > > A client can have to deal with MDNs in different ways: > > (editorial) "have to deal with" seems like it can be read as implying > obligation to do so (even though the majuscule "MUST" is not used); it > seems like this is just attempting to enumerate the cases in which an > MDN might be encountered or need to be interacted with. Replaced by "come across". Not being native English speaker, the distinction is subtle for me, I hope it's better. > > 2. When sending an email message, an MDN can be requested. This > must be done with the help of a header, and is already specified > by [RFC8098] and can already be handled by [RFC8621] this way. > > (nit?) "header" or "header field"? (We get this a lot for HTTP and I've > forgotten if SMTP uses the same rule...) Fixed > > 3. When receiving an MDN, the MDN could be related to an existing > sent message. This is already covered by [RFC8621] in the > EmailSubmission object. [...] > > (The "DeliveryStatus" member, in particular, right?) The "mdnBlobIds" member is enough explicit for me to not have to write it. > Section 1.3 > > The value of this "urn:ietf:params:jmap:mdn" property is an empty > object in the account's "accountCapabilities" property. > > I presume it's also an empty object in the server's "capabilities" > property as well (and we should probably say so). Fixed. > Section 2 > > It's a little interesting to me that RFC 8261 did not define or mention > specific access to the User-Agent string but we need to have a specific > reportingUA here. I do recognize that it's (an optional) part of the > RFC 8098 ABNF, and that RFC 8098 mentions the relevant security > considerations already. Perhaps a subtle nudge in this section that the > "null" option may have better privacy properties would be appropriate. > (We may also revisit whether/what to include in the examples for > reportingUA.) Added. > o finalRecipient: "String|null" Recipient for which the MDN is being > issued. if set, it overrides the value that would be calculated > by the server from the Identity. > > Could we get a couple more words to support the definite article? (I am > not sure which Identity is "the" Identity just from this context; it is > only later on that we discover that there is an identityId in the > MDN/send arguments.) Added. > > o extensionFields: "String[String]|null" Object where keys are > extension-field names and values are extension-field values. > > I used process of elimination to conclude that these are RFC 8098 > extension-field ABNF names/values; I don't know if there's a good way to > hint the reader of that fact. I tried to add a hint. > > o actionMode: "String" This MUST be one of the following strings: > "manual-action" / "automatic-action" > > o sendingMode: "String" This MUST be one of the following strings: > "mdn-sent-manually" / "mdn-sent-automatically" > > I recognize that this is entirely the responsibility of RFC 8098 and not > this document, but is it valid to combine "automatic-action" with > "mdn-sent-manually"? I am not 100% I understand the semantics. Yes it is explained in RFC 8098 : "manual-action [...] (This might include the case when the user has manually configured her MUA to automatically respond to valid MDN requests.)" > Section 2.1 > > The latter because of the implicit call > to Email/set and the use of Identities, described below. [...] > > nit: does this sentence have a verb? Fixed. > > The following already registered SetError would mean: > > nit: these are the SetError types, right? Fixed. > Section 3.x > > It might be helpful to use a different creation ID for the different > classes of example (though not required by the protocol). Fixed. > Section 3.1 > > "extension": { > "X-EXTENSION-EXAMPLE": "example.com" > } > > nit(?): somehow I thought X- extensions were generally thought to not be > needed/useful anymore. Fixed. > Section 5 > > In order to enforce trust regarding the relation between the user > sending an email message and the identity of this user, the server > SHOULD validate in conformance to the provided Identity that the user > is permitted to use the finalRecipient value and return a > forbiddenFrom error if not. > > "enforce" and "SHOULD" are not words I usually see in combination. Fixed, I meant reinforce.
- [Jmap] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-jma… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [Jmap] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Bron Gondwana
- Re: [Jmap] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Jmap] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Jmap] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Raphaël Ouazana
- Re: [Jmap] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Raphaël Ouazana
- Re: [Jmap] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Jmap] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Benjamin Kaduk