Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-jmap-mdn
1. This document is being requested as an Proposed Standard because it
extends an existing Proposed Standard (RFC8621). The request type
is indicated in the title page header as "Standards Track".
2.
Technical Summary
This spec extends JMAP-mail with an object representation for message
delivery notification messages and allows the server to create and
parse those notifications on behalf of the client.
Working Group Summary
This document underwent numerous revisions in the working group. As
the first extension to the JMAP spec written by somebody other than
the original authors, it's going to set the example that future
extensions work from, and the authors did an excellent job of
collating feedback and making sure their spec was consistent with
the "JMAP way".
Document Quality
This spec is quite easy to implement - there is a mostly complete
implementation in the Cyrus IMAP server already.
Personnel
Document Shepherd - Bron Gondwana (JMAP co-chair)
Responsible Area Director - Barry Leiba
3. The Document Shepherd has read the document through in detail
over many revisions including writing detailed reviews.
4. There are no concerns about reviews, this document has been
well reviewed.
5. There is no review required for the document by other areas.
6. There are no concerns with this document that IESG should be
aware of.
7. The author has been contacted and confirmed that they have
no IPR disclosures.
8. There have been no IPR disclosures filed.
9. The WG consensus is solid.
10. There has been no discontent.
11. The IDnits tool has no complaints.
12. This document doesn't define anything which needs formal
review outside the working group.
13. All references have been identified as either normative or
informative.
14. All normative references are published standards.
15. There are no downward normative references references.
16. This RFC does not change the status of any other RFCs.
17. The IANA considerations asks for an entry in the JMAP
capabilities registry and an entry in the JMAP error
codes registry.
18. There are no new IANA registries.
19. The JSON fragments were tested for syntax with the `jq`
tool, and one mistake was found which can be fixed in
editing - the example in section 3.3 is missing a double
quote at the end of the text blobIds in `"blobIds: `.
20. There are no YANG models in this document.