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

From: Erik Kline via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2021 23:35:09 -0700

Erik Kline 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just some random questions that came to mind...

[S4.2, question]

* Is there any benefit to/reason to consider some boolean like
  "hasVerifiedAtDeliverySmime"?

[S5, question]

* In section 4.1, the values of smimeStatus are defined as

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

  If the intention is that documents that update this document are the
  the way to create new possible values, should this imply the establishment
  of a registry of these values?

  But perhaps this level of process is not desired.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 15:20:57 +0100

Hi Erik,

Thank you for your comments.

Yes, it might be useful to know whether a message (or a group of 
messages) was valid (S/MIME signed/verified) at delivery time.
>    But perhaps this level of process is not desired.

I suppose the document can create a registry. But I can only think of a 
couple of additions that can be added when S/MIME encryption is also 
used. I would probably leave this to a future document.

Best Regards,

Alexey