Subject: [Extra] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-26: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 07:23:44 -0800

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-26: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. Collecting and aggregating all
the previous updates is really useful. The numerous examples are really helpful.

I must admit though that "unpublished IMAP2bis protocols" makes me wonder why
it is mentioned if not public... Also, "network connection" is kind of weird
for an Internet based on connectionless IP layer... ;-)

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 2.3.2 --
Why two flags associated to "junk" but only one for "phishing" ?

-- Section 8 --
This example uses LOGIN method that is not recommended on plain text connection
(see 6.2.3). Perhaps worth saying that this example works over implicit TLS or
better use a AUTH method?

== NITS ==

-- Section 4.3 --
"synchonizing literal" ?

-- Section 6.3.12 --
The example contains "Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII" while in most
email headers that I have seen, the value is in lowercase... May I assume that
case is *not* relevant (because not part of the email message but part of IMAP)
? If so, this value reads lie SHOUTING to me ;-)

-- Section 6.4.4 --
The example dates are in 1994... perhaps worth updating ?  ;-) Other examples
are in 2006

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 18:18:54 +0000

Hi Éric,

Thank you for your review. Comments below.

On 01/02/2021 15:23, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
> it is mentioned if not public...
It was popular at the time and I believe there was a draft at some 
point. This actually predates my participation in IETF.
>   Also, "network connection" is kind of weird
Yes, good idea. Apparently nobody looks at this except for IESG ;-).
> "synchonizing literal" ?
Fixed, thank you :-).
> ? If so, this value reads lie SHOUTING to me ;-)

This is defined in RFC 2045, which defines Content-Type header field 
syntax. Basically, all three: the media type ("TEXT/PLAIN"), parameter 
name ("CHARSET") and charset parameter value ("US-ASCII") are all 
defined to be case insensitive.

So no, this has nothing to do with IMAP.

As an editor, I do like to pick some examples demonstrating 
case-insensitivity and other unusual conditions.

> The example dates are in 1994... perhaps worth updating ?  ;-) Other examples

This is a revision of RFC 3501, which is a revision of RFC 2060, etc.

We could update examples, but they are still valid. Changes would most 
likely affect day-of-the-week, which might in turn change literal 
sizes... So changes can introduce new bugs.

Best Regards,

Alexey

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 21:52:14 +0000

Alexey

I appreciate your quick return and your partial answers.

I smiled when reading "As an editor, I do like to pick some examples demonstrating case-insensitivity and other unusual conditions."

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, 1 February 2021 at 19:19
To: Eric Vyncke <[email-masked]>, The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-26: (with COMMENT)

    Hi Éric,

    Fixed, thank you :-).

    Best Regards,

    Alexey

---

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 09:00:49 +1100

> Why two flags associated to "junk" but only one for "phishing" ?

I can answer this one :)  $Junk and $NotJunk are designed to be set by the client in order to provide feedback to the server in order for it to update its engine (i.e. by feeding into a Bayes database). $Phishing is designed for the server to add an "I delivered this to your mailbox but since then I've learned that it's bad" - it's never set by clients.

This information is a direct copy of what's in the IANA registry already:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/imap-jmap-keywords/imap-jmap-keywords.xhtml

Cheers,

Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  [email-masked]