User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.5-739-g7452a1e-fmstable-20190103v1
Message-Id: <fd7ea4a3-ac5b-40be-9323-250d44778e78@beta.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <23603.21152.388621.403480@fireball.acr.fi>
References: <154651703823.29557.748556981627156046@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <CABuGu1oM4qBcMNxh=rnWCSD-tVJYcNmDaL+orwBqq=OAvKWOZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190105185050.GB28515@kduck.kaduk.org>
 <CALaySJKezOW02CUfUnCSTUfC4CTcrmLnFu-Ttwd4U3Cn7Txt-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <23603.21152.388621.403480@fireball.acr.fi>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 21:54:32 -0500
From: "Neil Jenkins" <neilj@fastmailteam.com>
To: "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org>, "Tero Kivinen" <kivinen@iki.fi>
Cc: "Benjamin Kaduk" <kaduk@mit.edu>, "IETF JMAP Mailing List" <jmap@ietf.org>,
 "Kurt Andersen (IETF)" <kurta+ietf@drkurt.com>,
 draft-ietf-jmap-core.all@ietf.org, iesg <iesg@ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bfdcece0f01540669854ff55535653f2
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/VhrzIm0m9evgr9OmINIti-kGICo>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-jmap-core-12
Precedence: list

--bfdcece0f01540669854ff55535653f2
Content-Type: text/plain

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019, at 12:22 AM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
> There is already huge difference in sharing mail and sharing
> calendars. Most of the calendars support easy way of sharing only
> limited set of data, i.e., you can mark entries as private where those
> will not be shared out, or will be shared out only as "busy", i.e.,
> you can only see person is not available but not what calendar entry
> is.
> 
> In mailboxes we do not have that kind of features. One thing we could
> suggest to implementors to allow sharing subfolders of the actual
> account instead of full mailbox,

Err, not sure what you're talking about here. Most email systems already support sharing on a per-folder (or *mailbox* as they're called in IMAP and JMAP) granularity. That's why JMAP and IMAP can return you a "myRights" object with your permissions for each mailbox. Calendars are identical; you generally share on a per-calendar basis (which acts the same as a mailbox for mail; a collection of individual data items).

Neil.
--bfdcece0f01540669854ff55535653f2
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type=3D"text/css">p.Mso=
Normal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div>On Tue, 8 Jan 2=
019, at 12:22 AM, Tero Kivinen wrote:<br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"=
 id=3D"fastmail-quoted"><div>There is already huge difference in sharing=
 mail and sharing<br></div><div>calendars. Most of the calendars support=
 easy way of sharing only<br></div><div>limited set of data, i.e., you c=
an mark entries as private where those<br></div><div>will not be shared =
out, or will be shared out only as "busy", i.e.,<br></div><div>you can o=
nly see person is not available but not what calendar entry<br></div><di=
v>is.<br></div><div><br></div><div>In mailboxes we do not have that kind=
 of features. One thing we could<br></div><div>suggest to implementors t=
o allow sharing subfolders of the actual<br></div><div>account instead o=
f full mailbox,<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Err, not sure =
what you're talking about here. Most email systems already support shari=
ng on a per-folder (or <i>mailbox</i> as they're called in IMAP and JMAP=
) granularity. That's why JMAP and IMAP can return you a "myRights" obje=
ct with your permissions for each mailbox. Calendars are identical; you =
generally share on a per-calendar basis (which acts the same as a mailbo=
x for mail; a collection of individual data items).<br></div><div><br></=
div><div>Neil.<br></div></body></html>
--bfdcece0f01540669854ff55535653f2--