JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) Blob Management Extension
draft-ietf-jmap-blob-18

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work on this document.

Many thanks to Jaime Jimenez for his ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/a-glx5aRVBz18NSuF61am4K5LPA/. I encourage the authors to take a look at Jaime's comments before proceeding with publication.

[Ballot discuss]
** Section 4.2.1. The example has a few easy to fix issues:

--  Typo in JSON.  Missing comma between array elements in “ids”
OLD
      "ids" : [
        "Gc0854fb9fb03c41cce3802cb0d220529e6eef94e"
        "not-a-blob"
      ],

NEW
      "ids" : [
        "Gc0854fb9fb03c41cce3802cb0d220529e6eef94e",
        "not-a-blob"
      ],

-- The second request (“R2”) sets properties of “data:asText” and “data:asBase64”.  However, the response only returns a value for “data:asText”.  Shouldn’t it have returned the same data in both formats?

** Section 5
  If a server might sometimes return all names empty rather than
  putting a blobId in the notFound response to a Blob/get, then the
  server SHOULD always return the same type of response, regardless of
  whether a blob exists but the user can't access it, or doesn't exist
  at all.  This avoids leaking information about the existence of the
  blob.

Can these behaviors be clarified? 

-- If this text introducing a new, normative behavior that if a blobId is not found or the user isn’t authorized, a get query response could just be both an empty “list” and “notFound”?  I don’t see that described elsewhere.

-- The consistency in behavior for not found and or not authorized makes sense exactly for the reason described.  Therefore, why the SHOULD?  What would be the circumstances where leaking the existence of the blob is acceptable?

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Shawn Emery for the SECDIR review.

** Section 3.1.  supportedTypeNames.  Are the values in this array standardized? If so, can a pointer be provided?

** Section 3.1.  supportedDigestAlgorithms.  Is the order of the algorithms in the array significant?  For example, is the first array element the one most strongly preferred?

** Section 4.2.2

  G2: since data:asText was explicitly selected, does not attempt to return a value for the data, just isEncodingProblem for b1.

This text is would benefit from more clarity as b2 data is successfully returned.

** Section 4.3

  If a blob is not visible to a user at all, then the server SHOULD
  return that blobId in the notFound array, however it may also return
  an empty list for each type name, as it may not be able to know if
  other data types do reference that blob.

-- What does is mean for a blob to be “not visible to a user at all”.  Is that the same as the user is not authorized to access a blob?

-- The construction of the normative text is awkward.  “the server SHOULD , however it may also ”.  Are both activities intended governed by the “SHOULD”?

** Section 5
  The server MUST NOT trust that the data given to a Blob/upload is a
  well formed instance of the specified media type, and if the server
  attempts to parse the given blob, only hardened parsers designed to
  deal with arbitrary untrusted data should be used. 

Isn’t this a situation of “_when_ the server attempts ...” rather than “_if_ the server attempts ...” to parse the un-trusted input?  The document mentions base64 to text decodes and suggested automated media detection (in Section 4.1).

** Editorial

-- Section 3.1.  Typo. s/Alogirthms/Algorithms/
-- Section 4.  Typo. s/specfication/specification/
-- Section 4.1.  Editorial.  s/or detected from content/or detected from the content by the server/
-- Section 4.1.  Typo. s/sucessful/successful/

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of draft-ietf-jmap-blob-17

CC @larseggert

Thanks to Meral Shirazipour for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/BBWGL0wBOFVT7fFCVt0_eNpZQUw).

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Section 3.1, paragraph 14
```
-      list MUST be present in the HTTP Digest Alogirthms registry
-                                                  ^ -
+      list MUST be present in the HTTP Digest Algorithms registry
+                                                + ^
```

#### Section 4, paragraph 2
```
-    unchanged by this specfication, and is selected by the
+    unchanged by this specification, and is selected by the
+                          +
```

#### Section 4.1, paragraph 17
```
-    For each sucessful upload, servers MUST add an entry to the
+    For each successful upload, servers MUST add an entry to the
+              +
```

### Grammar/style

#### Section 4.2.2, paragraph 12
```
data given to a Blob/upload is a well formed instance of the specified media
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled with a hyphen.

#### Section 4.2.2, paragraph 12
```
e far side of security scanners (anti-virus or exfiltration scanners for exa
                                ^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Thanks for this document.

At the moment there is a IAB workshop on possibly ways that the Internet could be made more energy efficient.  One of the observation is of using text based encodings (e.g., JSON), where binary encodings could be used instead (e.g., CBOR).  Specifically, email came up as example of something where a binary encoding could be helpful.  E.g., in this document, the need to encode the binary blob data in Base64 probably makes it around a third less efficient than just being able to embed the binary data directly.

Hence, a long term question (and not directly relevant to this document) is whether there has been any consideration for JMAP to support a binary encoding like CBOR?

Then I also have one specific minor comment on this document:  The introduction states that this mechanism should be used for small blobs.  Would it helpful to add guidance or a suggestion as to how big a small blob may be?

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-jmap-blob-17
CC @ekline

## Nits

### Abstract

* "on defined endpoint"

  Perhaps "on defined endpoints" or "on a defined endpoint" or something.

### S3.1

* s/Alogirthms/Algorithms/

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

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-jmap-blob-17. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

We have a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document.

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the JMAP Capabilities registry under the JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jmap

a new registration will be made as follows:

Capability Name: urn:ietf:params:jmap:blob
Intended use: common
Change Controller: IETF
Security and privacy considerations: [ RFC-to-be, Section TBD]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the JMAP Error Codes registry under the JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jmap

a new registration will be made as follows:

JMAP Error Code: unknownDataType
Intended use: common
Change Controller: IETF
Description: The server does not recognise this data type, or the capability to enable it was not present.
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, a new registry called the JMAP Data Types registry will be created.

IANA Question --> Where should this new registry be located? Should it be added to an existing registry page? If it needs a new page, does it also need a new category at http://www.iana.org/protocols (and if so, should the page and the category have the same name)?

The registration policy for the new registry is Specification Required as defined in RFC 8126. There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows:

Type Name: Core
Can reference blobs: No
Can use for state change: No
Capability: urn:ietf:params:jmap:core
Reference: [RFC8620]

Type Name: PushSubscription
Can reference blobs: No
Can use for state change: No
Capability: urn:ietf:params:jmap:core
Reference: [RFC8620]

Type Name: Mailbox
Can reference blobs: Yes
Can use for state change: Yes
Capability: urn:ietf:params:jmap:mail
Reference: [RFC8621]

Type Name: Thread
Can reference blobs: Yes
Can use for state change: Yes
Capability: urn:ietf:params:jmap:mail
Reference: [RFC8621]

Type Name: Email
Can reference blobs: Yes
Can use for state change: Yes
Capability: urn:ietf:params:jmap:mail
Reference: [RFC8621]

Type Name: EmailDelivery
Can reference blobs: No
Can use for state change: Yes
Capability: urn:ietf:params:jmap:mail
Reference: [RFC8621]

Type Name: SearchSnippet
Can reference blobs: No
Can use for state change: No
Capability: urn:ietf:params:jmap:mail
Reference: [RFC8621]

Type Name: Identity
Can reference blobs: No
Can use for state change: Yes
Capability: urn:ietf:params:jmap:submission
Reference: [RFC8621]

Type Name: EmailSubmission
Can reference blobs: No
Can use for state change: Yes
Capability: urn:ietf:params:jmap:submission
Reference: [RFC8621]

Type Name: VacationResponse
Can reference blobs: No
Can use for state change: Yes
Capability: urn:ietf:params:jmap:vacationresponse
Reference: [RFC8621]

Type Name: MDN
Can reference blobs: No
Can use for state change: No
Capability: urn:ietf:params:jmap:mdn
Reference: [RFC9007]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions 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 Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-11-23):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-jmap-blob@ietf.org, fenton@bluepopcorn.net, jmap-chairs@ietf.org, jmap@ietf.org, superuser@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (JMAP Blob management extension) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the JSON Mail Access Protocol WG (jmap)
to consider the following document: - 'JMAP Blob management extension'
  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 2022-11-23. 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


  The JMAP base protocol (RFC8620) provides the ability to upload and
  download arbitrary binary data via HTTP POST and GET on defined
  endpoint.  This binary data is called a "blob".

  This extension adds additional ways to create and access blobs, by
  making inline method calls within a standard JMAP request.

  This extension also adds a reverse lookup mechanism to discover where
  blobs are referenced within other data types.




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



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

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

This document represents the consensus of the jmap working group. While the working group is small, this document did attract comment from several individuals associated with different organizations.

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

There were no particular disagreements about the draft, but there were suggestions that were incorporated by the document editor.

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)?

One known implementation exists for Cyrus. Other implementers, notably Fastmail, are expected to implement soon. Existing JMAP implementations are listed at the community site jmap.io, but since this is an extension to existing "blob" functions, the features in this particular draft are not mentioned there.

## 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.

This document is confined to the email application space, and has little overlap with other IETF working groups. The feature may be of interest to an organization such as M3AAWG and may have been presented there, but their deliberations are private and they therefore provide little review of technical specifications.

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.

No known expert review criteria are involved.

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]?

No YANG module is included.

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 document contains JMAP examples, which have been manually reviewed by members of the working group. No formal language specifications are included.

## 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. The draft has been reviewed in detail by the Document Shepherd, and changes were incorporated as a result.

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?

As this extension is not user-facing and deals with binary data, many of the ART area issues (internationalization, for example) do not apply. The draft uses JSON, although there are no specific issues mentioned for it, and JMAP for which the working group review should be considered authoritative.

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?

Proposed Standard, as noted in the datatracker. Other extensions of JMAP (e.g., RFC 9219, 9007, 8887, etc.) have all been published as Proposed Standard.

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.

Author/editor is aware of no IPR relating to this draft, and has confirmed that to the Shepherd. No assertions of IPR have been made to the WG.

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. Single author.

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.)

Current idnits generates a warning about license boilerplate (simplified BSD license vs. Revised BSD license). Not known if this is an idnits error or not.

*Update 12 Oct 2022*: After submitting this draft to IESG, I found a different way of running idnits that showed several errors and warnings, the most serious of which is several too-long lines. The editor has been made aware that these will need to be fixed on the next revision.

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

References appear to be correctly categorized.

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

None: all references are 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.

All referenced documents are either standards-track or BCP.

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.

Does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

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]).

Two new registry entries are specified and appear to be completely specified. One new
IANA registry is defined, and specifies its internal contents, allocation procedure (specification required), and name.

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 IANA registries call for designated expert review.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

Apologies, I managed to overwrite this when I thought I was uploading the shepherd writeup for a different document.  I'll see if someone can recover the old copy.

## 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?

This document reached broad agreement.

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

There was some redesign, but no roughness.

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 there have been no disagreements about the final state of the document.

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)?

Linagora have an implementation, Fastmail have done an evaluation and will implement
soon.  Other JMAP implementors have indicated that they intend to support it.

## 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.

The only other interaction is with the QUOTA extension in EXTRA, and they are
aware of this work and have reviewed it for compatibility.

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 were no formal 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 is 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.

I checked the JSON sections of the document by feeding them to `jq` and ensuring
that it agreed that they were valid JSON (after manually removing the ... for
elided additional data)

## 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, the document is 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?



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?

This document is intended to be a Proposed Standard as it extends an existing
Proposed Standard.  It correctly reflects this.

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.

The authors have been contacted directly and 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 there is only one author, who is willing to be listed.

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.)

There aren't any issues other than "document 23 days old" which is my fault for
not submitting this earlier.

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

All the references are normative, and are required to be.

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 normative 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 downward references.

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.

This document creates an optional extension to a protocol defined in another RFC.
It doesn't (currently) list that document in the "Updates" section.

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 registration looks correct and follows the guidelines for the registry
it is updating.

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.

There are no new IANA registrations

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

This document represents the consensus of the jmap working group. While the working group is small, this document did attract comment from several individuals associated with different organizations.

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

There were no particular disagreements about the draft, but there were suggestions that were incorporated by the document editor.

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)?

One known implementation exists for Cyrus. Other implementers, notably Fastmail, are expected to implement soon. Existing JMAP implementations are listed at the community site jmap.io, but since this is an extension to existing "blob" functions, the features in this particular draft are not mentioned there.

## 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.

This document is confined to the email application space, and has little overlap with other IETF working groups. The feature may be of interest to an organization such as M3AAWG and may have been presented there, but their deliberations are private and they therefore provide little review of technical specifications.

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.

No known expert review criteria are involved.

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]?

No YANG module is included.

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 document contains JMAP examples, which have been manually reviewed by members of the working group. No formal language specifications are included.

## 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. The draft has been reviewed in detail by the Document Shepherd, and changes were incorporated as a result.

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?

As this extension is not user-facing and deals with binary data, many of the ART area issues (internationalization, for example) do not apply. The draft uses JSON, although there are no specific issues mentioned for it, and JMAP for which the working group review should be considered authoritative.

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?

Proposed Standard, as noted in the datatracker. Other extensions of JMAP (e.g., RFC 9219, 9007, 8887, etc.) have all been published as Proposed Standard.

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.

Author/editor is aware of no IPR relating to this draft, and has confirmed that to the Shepherd. No assertions of IPR have been made to the WG.

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. Single author.

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.)

Current idnits generates a warning about license boilerplate (simplified BSD license vs. Revised BSD license). Not known if this is an idnits error or not.

*Update 12 Oct 2022*: After submitting this draft to IESG, I found a different way of running idnits that showed several errors and warnings, the most serious of which is several too-long lines. The editor has been made aware that these will need to be fixed on the next revision.

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

References appear to be correctly categorized.

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

None: all references are 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.

All referenced documents are either standards-track or BCP.

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.

Does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

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]).

Two new registry entries are specified and appear to be completely specified. One new
IANA registry is defined, and specifies its internal contents, allocation procedure (specification required), and name.

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 IANA registries call for designated expert review.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

This document represents the consensus of the jmap working group. While the working group is small, this document did attract comment from several individuals associated with different organizations.

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

There were no particular disagreements about the draft, but there were suggestions that were incorporated by the document editor.

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)?

One known implementation exists for Cyrus. Other implementers, notably Fastmail, are expected to implement soon. Existing JMAP implementations are listed at the community site jmap.io, but since this is an extension to existing "blob" functions, the features in this particular draft are not mentioned there.

## 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.

This document is confined to the email application space, and has little overlap with other IETF working groups. The feature may be of interest to an organization such as M3AAWG and may have been presented there, but their deliberations are private and they therefore provide little review of technical specifications.

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.

No known expert review criteria are involved.

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]?

No YANG module is included.

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 document contains JMAP examples, which have been manually reviewed by members of the working group. No formal language specifications are included.

## 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. The draft has been reviewed in detail by the Document Shepherd, and changes were incorporated as a result.

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?

As this extension is not user-facing and deals with binary data, many of the ART area issues (internationalization, for example) do not apply. The draft uses JSON, although there are no specific issues mentioned for it, and JMAP for which the working group review should be considered authoritative.

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?

Proposed Standard, as noted in the datatracker. Other extensions of JMAP (e.g., RFC 9219, 9007, 8887, etc.) have all been published as Proposed Standard.

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.

Author/editor is aware of no IPR relating to this draft, and has confirmed that to the Shepherd. No assertions of IPR have been made to the WG.

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. Single author.

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.)

Current idnits generates a warning about license boilerplate (simplified BSD license vs. Revised BSD license). Not known if this is an idnits error or not.

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

References appear to be correctly categorized.

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

None: all references are 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.

All referenced documents are either standards-track or BCP.

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.

Does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

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]).

Two new registry entries are specified and appear to be completely specified. One new
IANA registry is defined, and specifies its internal contents, allocation procedure (specification required), and name.

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 IANA registries call for designated expert review.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

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?

This document represents the consensus of the jmap working group. While the working group is small, this document did attract comment from several individuals associated with different organizations.

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

There were no particular disagreements about the draft, but there were suggestions that were incorporated by the document editor.

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)?

One known implementation exists for Cyrus. Other implementers, notably Fastmail, are expected to implement soon. Existing JMAP implementations are listed at the community site jmap.io, but since this is an extension to existing "blob" functions, the features in this particular draft are not mentioned there.

## 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.

This document is confined to the email application space, and has little overlap with other IETF working groups. The feature may be of interest to an organization such as M3AAWG and may have been presented there, but their deliberations are private and they therefore provide little review of technical specifications.

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.

No known expert review criteria are involved.

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]?

No YANG module is included.

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 document contains JMAP examples, which have been manually reviewed by members of the working group. No formal language specifications are included.

## 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. The draft has been reviewed in detail by the Document Shepherd, and changes were incorporated as a result.

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?

As this extension is not user-facing and deals with binary data, many of the ART area issues (internationalization, for example) do not apply. The draft uses JSON, although there are no specific issues mentioned for it, and JMAP for which the working group review should be considered authoritative.

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?

Proposed Standard, as noted in the datatracker. Other extensions of JMAP (e.g., RFC 9219, 9007, 8887, etc.) have all been published as Proposed Standard.

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.

Author/editor is aware of no IPR relating to this draft, and has confirmed that to the Shepherd. No assertions of IPR have been made to the WG.

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. Single author.

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.)

Current idnits generates a warning about license boilerplate (simplified BSD license vs. Revised BSD license). Not known if this is an idnits error or not.

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

References appear to be correctly categorized.

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

None: all references are 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.

All referenced documents are either standards-track or BCP.

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.

Does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

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]).

Two new registry entries are specified and appear to be completely specified. One new
IANA registry is defined, and specifies its internal contents, allocation procedure (specification required), and name.

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 IANA registries call for designated expert review.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/