Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-jmap-mail-14

Request Review of draft-ietf-jmap-mail
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2019-02-04
Requested 2019-01-21
Authors Neil Jenkins , Chris Newman
I-D last updated 2019-02-21
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Magnus Nyström (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -14 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Magnus Nyström
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-jmap-mail by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 14 (document currently at 16)
Result Has issues
Completed 2019-02-21
 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.

This document defines a data model for mail over JMAP. JMAP is a JSON-based
protocol for synchronization of data between clients and servers.


   Section 9, the Security Considerations section, generally refers to
draft-ietf-jmap-core for security considerations. I would agree with
this. I wonder for a
   new protocol like this though, if TLS 1.3 should be required?


   Also, for draft-ietf-jmap-core, it would be nice if Basic Auth
could be disallowed for a new protocol like this - trying to move away
from passwords

   - The rest of the Security Considerations section seems fine to me.

   Editorial; Section 9.3: "Milter protocol" - I understand this is
short-hand for "mail filter protocol," but perhaps this should be
written out, maybe with some
   reference? I also could not find the term defined in draft-ietf-jmap-core.

   - Also in 9.3, should "the Milter protocol" be "a Milter protocol"? Not

-- Magnus