Ballot for charter-ietf-jmap
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-04 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Just a couple of nits for your consideration. I find the use of "mobile" as a noun to be unnatural in this text: "These protocols are proliferating due to existing standards being insufficient or poorly suited to the environments they are operating in, particularly mobile and webmail." Perhaps "mobile devices and webmail"? If this paragraph: "The JMAP working group will specify an mechanism to allow clients to both view and send email from a server over a single stateless HTTPS channel with minimal round trips. A single protocol for receipt and submission will resolve long-standing difficulties users face setting up clients to talk to servers. The use of multiple protocols to perform actions within a single application creates significant support challenges, as users may get a variety of partial failure modes (for example, can receive email, but can not send new messages). This is further exacerbated if the different protocols are authenticated separately." was rearranged so that it describes a problem and, in a separate paragraph, says what the working group will do to resolve the problem, that would be easier for me to parse. I'm thinking of something like this: "The use of multiple protocols to perform actions within a single application creates significant support challenges, as users may get a variety of partial failure modes (for example, can receive email, but can not send new messages). This is further exacerbated if the different protocols are authenticated separately. The JMAP working group will specify an mechanism to allow clients to both view and send email from a server over a single stateless HTTPS channel with minimal round trips. A single protocol for receipt and submission will resolve long-standing difficulties users face setting up clients to talk to servers."