Jmap Status PagesJSON Mail Access Protocol (Active WG)
Art Area: Adam Roach, Alexey Melnikov, Ben Campbell | 2017-Mar-16 —Chairs:
IETF-102 jmap minutes
Session 2018-07-16 1330-1530: Notre Dame - Audio stream - jmap chatroom
JMAP IETF102 Minutes - Montreal / 16-Jul-2018 13:30-14:30 Core ---- * Error Registry - Registry is infrastructure - better to get it in place up front! - Chris Newman will write text * Push Filtering - Keep default behaviour as "push everything for data type" - Create an extension for "filtered push" as a separate option * Explicit totals - We're going to change to "require client to ask for totals" - If the client doesn't ask, server MUST NOT send totals, because clients often just test against an implementation. * Last Call - no objections in the room to going to last call after applying this current set of changes Mail ---- * Group Names - lots of discussion, will finalise on the list * Splitting out extensions - will keep vacation in the mail spec document * but with a separate capability, so there's an example in the spec of how to do extensions to it. - attachment searching is covered by updated text in the spec * "search in non-text bodyparts" * would be useful to know which MIME bodyparts matched * Last Call - no objections in the room to going to last call after applying this current set of changes Extensions ---------- * Re-charter - more likely to succeed if we have an initial set of extensions that we plan to work on rather than fully open-ended. - will start with what we have now * websockets - FastMail and Isode are interested - Ken to keep working on it - wsUrl to be moved under capabilities because there's already a registry there, so no namespace clash issues * sieve - Definite interest - Very few clients allow full sieve editing, instead having a more simplistic rule builder. - Do we want to offer an intermediate format? (like how JMAP hides the full MIME complexity) - to be discussed on the list * MDN - Definite interest - Will go to the list for an author * single HTML file - No demand for it yet, so shelved - Question: is there a standard "web archive" format yet? Should consider that as a way to bundle images, etc. * search in attachments - see above: non-text body parts - it's impossible to get all possible searchable text to match user expectation (e.g. OCR of text-like images), so it will always depend on what servers can do - put text in the spec detailing the user experience behaviour, but don't constrain server Other Business -------------- Discussion went back to nulls and groups in the asAddresses representation, and nothing was resolved.