Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-jmap-core-12

"Neil Jenkins" <> Wed, 09 January 2019 04:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A46712D4EB; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 20:18:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.983
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HEADER_CTYPE_ONLY=0.717, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=0j1ExoO9; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=sKOu+l+l
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Im2O7NQ3bmV; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 20:18:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14C9A129AB8; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 20:18:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA592538B; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 23:18:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imap7 ([]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 08 Jan 2019 23:18:37 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from :to:cc:subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=BzscEGMa9ySZG8Co9mwBDQDL6 En1y+1sss3Y0auLZUs=; b=0j1ExoO99WprG6LoSkR+XmBIJJrraOPgIbXM4HgsH bRsWXNULZQhCporMKTbUXR9Y++kXImtwBnaIUY6cmu9Q+oORuaE0Y8VITuxS67nF DZX8MEpf6E0LplGdRLftpodfHnVtG3oinG/suxP6RzjZfIeuM/7ZcABxVJY9RJk+ TaJ2WdF07DFTcZq4C7WLHdWrhn8xym0BUc3Qz2c9gI6D9zuL1m3O2MxwwDRBN0eq ReyrXqOJA03Z3Pu5mQ9q5n9Jx2irQPb0BpPUbP8zvLirIh1EB1n2gkycQeP8ibmT Y6KJohhkTpu0lG8vrnln4scausonnze5h2GReatf9hCxA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=BzscEGMa9ySZG8Co9 mwBDQDL6En1y+1sss3Y0auLZUs=; b=sKOu+l+luaVOcY3qEEAYT4XSGjTvpN0yZ 9pt+HwbUMAArSo66Eb9tWtj5mVBKbxdICpyW0YTuu1SWAYo4Oc5Ob9EXV1cHI+FI WyqbwoRKSEbcTnnFUl+b/HoYiUDoYzyBLI3un+TUvoRBrYJet/EyODN3hCaC5aWp jbbxj2wYnECRw5EpvYzhgrDy1DKJ8TIpNwQgVryWEpP5398zqrJa/hGgsYyjzZ5X QDZSV43KYtrTCqcFVYxHm95+ByLLg+PHFYlVkMaw5QSgrcezbaPLlV2DlT2an+LF uZpli0Vg2EcHW/QU/1sI18nwno6PAofaz6xEB47N/ObLAHUNPJgaw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:HHY1XGLf7U3nyV96dY2k8YqzRikcGxaJiwKNpeDaF4U7mid6TPBXlw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtledrfedtgdejudculddtuddrgedtkedrtddtmd cutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfhuthen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfkfgjfhffhffvufgtsegrtderreerredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfpfgvihhl ucflvghnkhhinhhsfdcuoehnvghilhhjsehfrghsthhmrghilhhtvggrmhdrtghomheqne cuffhomhgrihhnpehgihhthhhusgdrtghomhenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhep nhgvihhljhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlthgvrghmrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivg eptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:HHY1XFkgJIEmBrwK_v8X7US4uYfWajTpqpiaWx4ReqM16Pcgp5HL4A> <xmx:HHY1XEHE-6XuEPs0NG9nCnIbnEa2HVGNMu5K9pI2pHQwkLQNXOVyTg> <xmx:HHY1XFF5OxHF_rTGRcq1vfLVdAfZIOxsaB_1qdBj9vzUkIkjhfo7dQ> <xmx:HXY1XNVpDcewb28R9JksD1ATDEtdFaw0Lulz_ZX7zMm2rkocpUGXSw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 79A18203F1; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 23:18:36 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.5-739-g7452a1e-fmstable-20190103v1
X-Me-Personality: 64588216
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2019 23:18:36 -0500
From: "Neil Jenkins" <>
To: "Tero Kivinen" <>
Cc:, "Bron Gondwana" <>, "IETF JMAP Mailing List" <>,,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=a589e271320c4d059cd84835353b537e
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-jmap-core-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 04:18:40 -0000

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, at 1:28 AM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> When you are subscribing the push notifications your devices should be
> running and not offline.

Agreed. It's still possible for the initial message not to arrive, but in the vast majority of cases it will; if it doesn't, the client can destroy and recreate the subscription to try again. Weighing this up, I agree that adding a verification step is the best way forward here.

>  When something changes on the server, the server pushes a
>  *StateChange* object to the client.
> Actually that says "to the client" not to the "push service". Which
> one should it be?

Well, it's to the client, possibly via a push service, but possibly not because there are two "push" mechanisms defined here; the other is where the client can maintain a permanent TCP connection directly to the JMAP server in which case it can use an EventSource connection to receive push events directly without going via a 3rd party.

> Hmm... and 7.2 then also uses term "push endpoint" which is not
> defined anywhere? Is that the same as push service at given url

Reading through it again, there was some confusion in the use of terminology. I have rewritten a few sections to attempt to clarify this and the other confusing points you pointed out. You can see the changes for this here <>;. The addition of a verification step is added in this change here <>;.

Are you happy that this is sufficient to address your concerns?