The IMAP ENABLE Extension
RFC 5161
Yes
(Chris Newman)
No Objection
(Cullen Jennings)
(David Ward)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert
No Objection
Comment
(2008-01-23)
Section 3.1, paragraph 9: > Clients SHOULD only include extensions that need to be enabled by > the server. At the time this RFC is published CONDSTORE is the only > such extension (ie. ENABLE CONDSTORE is an additional "Condstore > enabling command" as defined in [RFC4551]). Future RFCs may add to > this list. [Note to the RFC Editor: If the IMAP ANNOTATE document > has been published already, ANNOTATE should be mentioned as well as > CONDSTORE.] If it is considered important to also mention ANNOTATE, you could add a sentence here and normatively cite [ANNOTATE], so that the RFC Editor will wait with publishing this document until [ANNOTATE] has been published. (In case you don't do this, you probably want to give the RFC Editor more specific instructions on how to "mention" ANNOTATE.) Section 2., paragraph 2: > the client is aware of the extension). CONSTORE ([RFC4551]), Nit: s/CONSTORE/CONDSTORE/
Chris Newman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-01-24)
> The five characters [...] means that
something has been elided.
I did not see this used in the document.
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was No Record, No Objection)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-01-24)
While I agree that this command does not create any new security considerations (with respect to RFC 3501, which is referenced), it might be helpful to reiterate that this command is only valid in Authentiocated state. Accepting this command before authentication might allow a mitm to direct unsolicited responses to clients that don't supoport those IMAP extensions.