Subject: [Jmap] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-jmap-smime-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 03:07:51 -0700

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-jmap-smime-09: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

Thank you for the work on this document. Many thanks to Kirsty Paine for the
ART ART review, and thank you Alexey for addressing Kirsty's comments.

I have one non-DISCUSS question to which I'd really like an answer nonetheless.
Given the following text:

   [RFC8551] and [RFC8550].  Possible string values of the property are
   listed below.  Servers MAY return other values not defined below, as
   defined in extensions to this document.

Would it make sense to define an IANA registry for the allowed values, to
guarantee interoperability of implementations?

Francesca

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:55:04 +0100

Hi Francesca,

Thank you for your comments.

Ok, the only thing missing from the list of choices in this document 
(IMHO) is encrypted+signed/verified and encrypted+signed/failed, because 
this document doesn't cover automatic decryption. (These are hopefully 
will be documented in a followup document.) I am fine with creating an 
IANA registry, if people prefer.

Best Regards,

Alexey