[mailmaint] Re: draft-ietf-mailmaint-messageflag-mailboxattribute-09 ietf last call Secdir review

[Daniel Eggert <[e-mail]>]

I think, all nits have been addressed in the latest -11 revision.

/Daniel



> Den 7. okt. 2025 kl. 16.49 skrev Salz, Rich <rsalz=[e-mail]>:
> 
> Thanks and nerd-sniping appreciation for the color flags 😊
> 
> As for my comments in section 4, I meant group all those items with no sub-sub sections at the top, and then those with sub-items.  So this:
>       $notify, $muted, $followed, $autosent, $imported, $istrusted, $maskedemail, $new and then memos, attachment, subscription
> 
> Also consider putting everything in alphabetical order (sec 5 becomes memos snoozed scheduled), sec 4 becomes (autosent followed istrusted etc…)
> 
> From: Daniel Eggert <[e-mail]>
> Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 at 2:52 AM
> To: Neil Jenkins <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Salz, Rich <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Mail Maintenance WG <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mailmaint-messageflag-mailboxattribute-09 ietf last call Secdir review
> 
> This Message Is From an External Sender
> This message came from outside your organization.
>  
> I’ve uploaded revision 10 that addresses this feedback.
> 
> /Daniel
> 
> 
> Den 7. okt. 2025 kl. 12.45 skrev Neil Jenkins <[e-mail]>:
> 
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2025, at 03:22, Rich Salz via Datatracker wrote:
> Why three bits for `MailFlagN` instead of a single digit?
> 
> The main answer is "we're documenting existing practice". :) But just to clarify a little more, keywords are just present or not, so can only represent a single bit. So for 8 colours you could have 8 different keywords, but this has two problems:
> You could have two conflicting keywords present at the same time, which doesn't make sense (e.g., it's red + blue).
> Servers may limit the number of different keywords you can set, so the fewer the better for compatibility.
> I'm presuming this is why it was originally designed as it is (but again, we're just documenting it at this point).
> 
> Does the ordering of the keywords in Section 4 match some other IMAP documents?
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> I would find it easier to read all the simple definitions together, and then
> the related words (memo, attachment, subscription).
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "all the simple definitions together", sorry.
> 
> Sec 4.9: "verified with complete confidence". Please strike the word complete. 
> In fact, as a security person, I strongly suggest removing almost all
> absolutism from this section: "absolute certainty," "strong signal," etc.
> 
> Sure, these words are redundant, although it doesn't change the semantics of what the document is saying. (But I see your point — nothing can be completely confident with security…)
> 
> Sec 7 should probably mention that use and interpretation of these keywords,
> depends on the client/user ability to trust the IMAP server, and/or also refer
> to the security considerations in RFC 9051.
> 
> Sure, that sounds reasonable — Daniel, do you want to update as I think you've been editing it more recently?
> 
> Cheers,
> Neil.
> 
> -- 
> mailmaint mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]