Subject: [Jmap] JMAP Core

From: Neil Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:38:53 +1100

There are currently only two issues left open for JMAP core[1]! I'm
hoping we can basically be done with this spec by Christmas, and then
finish off the JMAP Mail issues in the beginning of next year to have
both done by IETF 101.
The two open issues are:

*#86*[2]* Do we need to define a minimum allowed
maxCallsInRequest value? *
I'm not sure we do, as a client could operate with maxCallsInRequest =
1, it just couldn't make as efficient use of the network. Any value we
did pick would of course be arbitrary. Any thoughts on this?
*#89*[3]* Do we need a registry of error types? *

Possibly? There are errors that may be returned by any method[4], and
it's possible we may want to expand this list in the future; not
requiring a new spec to do that could be good. I don't know whether method-
specific errors should go in such a registry as well. Thoughts? How do I
go about creating a registry presuming we decide we do need one?
I'd also like to invite members of this list to do a final review of the
core spec[5] and raise any other issues you think still need addressing
earlier rather than later. Thanks!
Neil.

Links:

  1. https://github.com/jmapio/jmap/labels/Core
  2. https://github.com/jmapio/jmap/issues/86
  3. https://github.com/jmapio/jmap/issues/89
  4. http://jmap.io/spec-core.html#errors
  5. http://jmap.io/spec-core.html

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 11:43:31 +0000

Hi Neil,

On 14/12/2017 03:38, Neil Jenkins wrote:
> There are currently only two issues left open for JMAP core 
> <https://github.com/jmapio/jmap/labels/Core>! I'm hoping we can 
> basically be done with this spec by Christmas, and then finish off the 
> JMAP Mail issues in the beginning of next year to have both done by 
> IETF 101.
>
> The two open issues are:
>
> *#86* <https://github.com/jmapio/jmap/issues/86>*Do we need to define 
> a minimum allowed maxCallsInRequest value? *
>
I think value 1 is rather limiting and will prevent the protocol from 
being useful, because clients might have to potentially have multiple 
code paths to cope with maxCallsInRequest == 1 and more capable servers.

I suggest picking a value > 1 which is relatively common from common use 
cases and mandate it. Maybe the value is 3 or slightly higher than that.

> *#89* <https://github.com/jmapio/jmap/issues/89>* Do we need a 
> registry of error types? *
>
> Possibly? There are errors that may be returned by any method 
> <http://jmap.io/spec-core.html#errors>, and it's possible we may want 
> to expand this list in the future; not requiring a new spec to do that 
> could be good.

Yes, I think we need to have a registry. I find IANA registries to be 
useful for implementing things and finding out what was already registered.

> I don't know whether method-specific errors should go in such a 
> registry as well. Thoughts?

I think so. If you want to have errors which mean (slightly) different 
things for different methods, it would be useful to be able to get this 
information from the registry. If different methods can't have the same 
error codes that mean different things, it would be good to know this 
information as well.

> How do I go about creating a registry presuming we decide we do need one?

I can suggest some text on this. I think the main thing to decide first 
is the registration policy. Do we want some kind of expert review for them?

> I'd also like to invite members of this list to do a final review of 
> the core spec <http://jmap.io/spec-core.html> and raise any other 
> issues you think still need addressing earlier rather than later. Thanks!

Best Regards,
Alexey