Re: [Vcon] Email metadata in vCon

[Dan Petrie <[e-mail]>]

 Hi Alexey:Thank you so much for your input and the reference to https://schema.org/EmailMessage.  I think that I need to dig into it some more and digest the schema.  My initial thought is that the EmailMessage schema is very thorough coverage of SMTP message metadata.  My second thought is do we need that thorough a coverage?
I would love to hear about vCon use cases from folks on the list who are using/planing to use email in vCons and what data from the email they are actually using.
Cheers,Dan
    On Friday, April 12, 2024, 4:45:33 PM UTC, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]> wrote:  
 
  
Hi all,
 
 On 04/04/2024 20:05, Orie Steele wrote:
  
 
Following up on this, I was reading https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4155.txt recently.
 
 I wonder if there are JSON Email representations that vCon might more directly defer to?
  I am not aware of a full JSON representation, but something like <https://schema.org/EmailMessage> might be useful for vCon?
 
 
 I was hoping there might be some JSON based email representation that vCon could cite or otherwise use without redefining terms.
 
 I came across:
 
 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sml-structured-email/
 
 I wonder if JSON-LD for vCon had been previously discussed, or had there been any conversation about how vCon and SML might fit together or not?
  
 
SML WG is not chartered to define Email representation in JSON. SML is tasked with documenting JSON representations for specific objects like flight itinerar that can be included in regular email messages.
 
Best Regards,
 
Alexey

  
 
 OS
 
 
  
  On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 4:47 PM Orie Steele <[e-mail]> wrote:
  
 Context for Dan and Alexey:
 
 - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-vcon
 - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-petrie-vcon
 
 We had some hallway conversations at IETF 119, about using vCon & SCITT for transparency and archival purposes.
 
 Regards,
 
 OS  
  On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 2:44 PM Orie Steele <[e-mail]> wrote:
  
 Adding a few email experts (I am not an email expert).
 
 These parameters look correct to me for vCon, but I am not sure if there are additional email details that should be considered for archival use cases.
 
 I also wonder if there is any encryption or signing information which might be retained in a useful way, such that a holder of a vCon and some trust roots might confirm that parts of a vCon have not been tampered with, without using the custom JOSE approaches in the draft today.
 
 I'm thinking specifically of the case where I might know that a Party had a particular key at a point in time, and I might be able to use that key to verify an email message that had been archived in vCon.
 
 I suppose there could also be DMARC / DKIM fields that we might expect to see preserved per message.
 
 Regards,
 
 OS 
  On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 2:03 PM Dan Petrie <[e-mail]> wrote:
  
   Hi Orie: You are probably swamped, catching up after IETF 119.  When you have a few minutes, it would be great to have your input on this. 
  I think that you have worked with email in a vCon more than many people have so far.  However, if anyone else on the list has any thoughts on this, I would greatly appreciate your input too. 
  I have done a little work putting email messages into a vCon, one message per dialog.  Mostly, my use was in some simple unit tests and in generating examples for the I-D.  The table below maps the SMTP headers that I have put into a vCon.   
  Are there any other SMTP header fields or metadata that you think should be possible to include in a vCon? 
  Do you agree with the mapping from SMTP to vCon parameters? 
  Cheers, Dan 
  
 
 
    
  
 
  -- 
       

 
 
ORIE STEELEChief Technology Officerwww.transmute.industries
 

 
       
  
 
  -- 
       

 
 
ORIE STEELEChief Technology Officerwww.transmute.industries
 

 
       
  
 
  -- 
       

 
 
ORIE STEELEChief Technology Officerwww.transmute.industries
 

 
       
 -- 
Vcon mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcon