Subject: [Jmap] draft-ietf-jmap-mdn-08

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 07:41:48 -0400

I just re-read -08 and I think it addresses all of the issues that I had 
while implementing.  I do have a few comments however:

Section 1, item 3: "Client could want..." -> "A client might want..."

Section 1.3: Is there a reason why only MDN/parse is mentioned with 
respect to the "capabilities" property and only MDN/send is mentioned 
with respect to the "accountCapabilities" property? Isn't it both 
methods or neither regardless of where the capability appears?

Section 2.1, penultimate paragraph: "accordingly to the RFC8098..." -> 
"according to the RFC8098..."

Section 2.2: My assumption has been that forEmailId is a JMAP Id, so I'm 
not sure why originalMessageId would have any effect on its value

Section 3.1: The example doesn't include an 'identity' argument

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Senior Software Developer
Fastmail US LLC

---

From: Raphael OUAZANA <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 16:28:14 +0000

Le 30 avril 2020 13:41, de [email-masked]

I understand this this way: MDN/parse (and so MDN object) are not tied to an account, so they can appear in "capabilities", while you need an account for MDN/send which then appears via "accountCapabilities". Hence the difference.

If you have a better way of telling it, I can do the change.

Given originalMessageId, you can find the original message from which was issued the MDN. And so the server can fill the "forEmailId" field.

Right. I changed it and fixed also other points. I also changed "identity" for "identityId" to be more coherent with the mail specification.

Thanks,

Raphaël.