The JMAPACCESS Extension for IMAP
draft-ietf-extra-jmapaccess-09

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-extra-jmapaccess and RFC 9698, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
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...

[Ballot comment]
        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.

[Ballot comment]
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.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-extra-jmapaccess-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the IMAP Response Codes registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/imap-response-codes/

two new IMAP Response Codes are to be registered as follows:

Response Code: JMAPACCESS
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Status Description:

Response Code: DEBUGGING
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]
Status Description:

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-08-28):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: brong@fastmailteam.com, draft-ietf-extra-jmapaccess@ietf.org, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com, yaojk@cnnic.cn
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (The JMAPACCESS Extension for IMAP) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Email mailstore and eXtensions To
Revise or Amend WG (extra) to consider the following document: - 'The
JMAPACCESS Extension for IMAP'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-08-28. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines an IMAP extension to let clients know that the
  messages in this IMAP server are also available via JMAP, and how.
  It is intended for clients that want to migrate gradually to JMAP.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-jmapaccess/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 12 August 2023.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The document is simple and in good shape. 
The group was positive about this version.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There's no controversy about the current version of the document.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are no known implementations, but there are potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

There's no interactions outside this working group.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There are no expert reviews required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

There's no YANG.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The ABNF was validated with the author-tools.ietf.org ABNF checker.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, it's ready.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

This document doesn't need any additional reviews for common issues.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Datatracker matches "Proposed Standard".  The document itself says "Standards
Track", possibly based on an old template.  It extends existing proposed
standards.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, authors are unaware of any IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, authors have shown willingness.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3501 (Obsoleted by RFC 9051)
In the Normative References, this document references both RFC 3501 and RFC 9051.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, they seem right - the one Informative reference shows interactions but is not
required.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All references are to IETF RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations are very simple and just add JMAPACCESS and DEBUGGING
response codes to an existing registry.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 12 August 2023.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

The document is simple and in good shape. 
The group was positive about this version.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There's no controversy about the current version of the document.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There are no known implementations, but there are potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

There's no interactions outside this working group.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There are no expert reviews required.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

There's no YANG.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

The ABNF was validated with the author-tools.ietf.org ABNF checker.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, it's ready.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

This document doesn't need any additional reviews for common issues.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Datatracker matches "Proposed Standard".  The document itself says "Standards
Track", possibly based on an old template.  It extends existing proposed
standards.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes, authors are unaware of any IPR.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, authors have shown willingness.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3501 (Obsoleted by RFC 9051)
In the Normative References, this document references both RFC 3501 and RFC 9051.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, they seem right - the one Informative reference shows interactions but is not
required.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All references are to IETF RFCs.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations are very simple and just add JMAPACCESS and DEBUGGING
response codes to an existing registry.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries