Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-jmap-websocket-04

Alexey Melnikov <> Thu, 19 December 2019 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2775612002E; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:18:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eIkPGkc_UBs5; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:18:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3501207FC; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:18:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1576775919;; s=june2016;; bh=MIrPOm/hrTUn0lFB+pMzE4bUfgYb5/2EHW4dKFbkK+E=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=ZKAnYZra5lcQkvbmLfiDqWufmvJRpzpzt6WNBnZqRsDRU3PMR+odfcIbpboeb8sBoDJ0sg lkM5wJaDC5b4ZMwVjYmchaDXQVf/4wo6VpiII6pm8WlFXHpsQ4ItmgwNGdlfA4ni0Xxcw3 TbDtTBBt5YySpmEmADt8S86pVBKcRc8=;
Received: from [] ( []) by (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <>; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:18:39 +0000
To: Bob Briscoe <>,
References: <>
From: Alexey Melnikov <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:17:42 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-jmap-websocket-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:18:44 -0000

Hi Bob,

Thank you for your review. A few quick comments below:

On 19/12/2019 16:41, Bob Briscoe via Datatracker wrote:

> ===Shouldn't extensibility be discussed?===
> The specification is full of statements saying what peer A MUST do, but
> lacks statements saying what peer B MUST do if peer A doesn't do what it
> is supposed to.
> Perhaps there needs to be a default case for what to do if one peer
> receives a message that violates the Websockets JMAP subprotocol (or at
> least one peer believes it violates the version of the protocol that it
> supports).
> Examples:
> 4.  JMAP Subprotocol
>     Binary data MUST NOT be uploaded or downloaded
>     through a WebSocket JMAP connection.
> What if they are?
I think this case is not interesting, as it is effectively a separate 
API endpoint in standard JMAP anyway. So there would be just no way of 
doing this in JMAP over WebSocket.
> 4.1 Handshake
>     Other message types MUST
>     NOT be transmitted over this connection.
> What if they are?
This is a more interesting case. So saying something here would be useful.
> 4.2 WebSocket Messages
> The lists of allowed messages following "The messages MUST be in the
> form of..." do not say what to do if they are not, and do not seem to
> allow for extensibility.

And so is this.


Best Regards,