JSON Mail Access Protocol
charter-ietf-jmap-03
Yes
(Adam Roach)
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
(Deborah Brungard)
(Ignas Bagdonas)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Suresh Krishnan)
- Ready for external review (00-04)
- Approve (00-06)
- Ready for external review (01-00)
- Approve (01-00)
- Ready w/o external review (02-00)
- Approve (02-01)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Adam Roach Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -01-00)
Not sent
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -01-00)
Not sent
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -01-00)
Not sent
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -01-00)
Not sent
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2019-04-11 for -01-00)
Sent
If we're going to be talking about new transports (e.g., websockets, or the more generic "different protocols than HTTPS"), we should say something about ensuring that the appropriate security properties are retained in the new setup(s).
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Not sent
Ignas Bagdonas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Not sent
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2019-04-11 for -01-00)
Sent
If the goal is to not diverge from existing formats, is it possible to clarify the relation between object models and data formats. For example are there really a need to define new data formats, as I assume there exists already for the established format? Should there be clearer scoping of why one may consider new data formats for existing object models?
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Sent
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01-00)
Not sent