The JMAPACCESS Extension for IMAP
draft-ietf-extra-jmapaccess-09
Yes
(Murray Kucherawy)
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
Jim Guichard
(Andrew Alston)
(Erik Kline)
(John Scudder)
(Martin Duke)
(Robert Wilton)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment
(2023-11-16 for -06)
Sent
Thank you to Daniel Migault for the SECDIR review. ** Section 6. This document suggests that servers reveal something to clients about how/whether their credentials would work for another server. Is there an assumption that the operator of the IMAP and JMAP server are the same? If so, this link would be worth stating to further explain why this is a low risk design choice.
Murray Kucherawy Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06)
Unknown
Paul Wouters Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2023-11-27 for -06)
Sent
However, the JMAP specification regulates that, in the text
about the name and role properties in [RFC8620] section 2.
I find this sentence hard to read and confusing. Can the word "that" be
expanded for clarity?
The authors believe that
This is a WG document. Either generalize this ("It is believed that", or
remove the sentence.
Andrew Alston Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Not sent
Erik Kline Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Not sent
Francesca Palombini Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2023-11-28 for -06)
Not sent
Thank you for the work on this document. Many thanks to Barry Leiba for his ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/MOi5iJe_d-T8qg-m9sI9WoIJZ70/.
John Scudder Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Not sent
Martin Duke Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Not sent
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Not sent
Warren Kumari Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2023-11-29 for -06)
Sent
Thank you for this document -- I'm really not an IMAP / JMAP person, but it was still an easy / interesting read.
I do have a questions:
You seem to be using inconsistent capitalization for OAUTH ("Oauth" vs "SASL OAUTH is specified by [RFC7628],") -- I've generally seen it written as all caps, but looking further (e.g: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7628.html) it seems like the former is more correct. I have no real idea, but mentioning it...
Zaheduzzaman Sarker Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2023-11-27 for -06)
Not sent
Thanks for working on this specification. I don't have any comments from transport point of view.