Last Call Review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-list-metadata-01
review-ietf-extra-imap-list-metadata-01-secdir-lc-nir-2024-03-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-list-metadata
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2024-03-15
Requested 2024-03-01
Authors Kenneth Murchison , Bron Gondwana
I-D last updated 2024-03-10
Completed reviews Artart Last Call review of -01 by Barry Leiba (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -01 by Behcet Sarikaya (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Yoav Nir (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Yoav Nir
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-extra-imap-list-metadata by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/Gh4M7UwgINNhU-ZFCW3dIq7UFLg
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 05)
Result Has nits
Completed 2024-03-10
review-ietf-extra-imap-list-metadata-01-secdir-lc-nir-2024-03-10-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.

The document is short and well-written. The security considerations section is
also short enough for me to copy it here:

   This specification does not introduce any additional security
   concerns beyond those described in [RFC5258].

RFC5258 is the RFC that describes LIST extensions in general. However, this
document does not just describe a generic extension. It describes an extension
to make the LIST command response contain the mailbox metadata. RFC 5464 which
describes mailbox metadata has a Security Considerations section, and its
content applies here.  So I suggest to replace "those described in [RFC5258]."
with "those described in [RFC5258] and [RFC5464]."