Batch JMAP calls while preserving state-token and error semantics

Frame this document as a source-led configuration and assurance check: Batch JMAP calls while preserving state-token and error semantics. Only the official source and traced locations below supply facts. Confirm applicability before acting.

Source fact:

The official RFC 8620 — The JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) from RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force supports the following bounded statements:

• One JMAP API request carries an ordered array of method calls, which the server processes sequentially and answers with an ordered response array. The research record locates this support at Sections 3 (Structured Data Exchange) and 3.3 (The Request Object).
• A /changes response links old and new state tokens; when an intermediate state cannot be calculated, the server returns cannotCalculateChanges and the client invalidates its cache. The research record locates this support at Section 5.2 (/changes).
• A /set call may partly succeed across different objects, but an individual object’s update is atomic and an ifInState mismatch aborts the method with stateMismatch. The research record locates this support at Section 5.3 (/set).

Only the traced statements above are asserted as source facts. Apply the review to sending domains, receiving domains, message agents, headers, authentication results, policy records, and failure handling after confirming that the source and deployed context match.

What the source does not establish

This RFC evidence supports only the named mail-protocol decision; it does not prove provider support, deliverability, or compliance for a particular flow. The citation is not a substitute for observed state, authorization, compliance evidence, or dependency health. Examine authoritative DNS, certificates, time, gateways, identity stores, reputation services, and third-party mail providers before translating the source into an operational decision.

Applicability questions

• For source statement 1 at Sections 3 (Structured Data Exchange) and 3.3 (The Request Object), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?
• For source statement 2 at Section 5.2 (/changes), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?
• For source statement 3 at Section 5.3 (/set), which observable configuration, record, or test can confirm applicability here?
• Within sending domains, receiving domains, message agents, headers, authentication results, policy records, and failure handling, which versions, roles, and configuration states define the review population?
• Could authoritative DNS, certificates, time, gateways, identity stores, reputation services, and third-party mail providers invalidate the test, hide a failure, or change applicability?
• Who owns the decision, and which observation requires stopping, escalation, or rollback?

DSE recommendation:

DSE recommends using the cited source as the evidence anchor for this decision. Begin by recording scope and current state before deciding whether a change is warranted. Record the source location, examined part of sending domains, receiving domains, message agents, headers, authentication results, policy records, and failure handling, observed and expected states, owner, and reason for deviation.

Do not move from citation to production in one step. Pilot the decision where practical, observe agreed signals, retain a reversal point, and verify authoritative DNS, certificates, time, gateways, identity stores, reputation services, and third-party mail providers. Handle credentials, keys, recovery data, and personal information through approved secure channels.

Verification and evidence

Build a reproducible chain from Sections 3 (Structured Data Exchange) and 3.3 (The Request Object); Section 5.2 (/changes); Section 5.3 (/set) to the observed environment. Useful domain evidence includes sanitized messages, DNS records, SMTP transcripts, authentication results, policy evaluation, and delivery or rejection logs; label every item with scope, timestamp, collector, and stable identifier.

Keep before-state evidence, approval, test or change result, exceptions, and after-state evidence together. Use an approved lab, window, or nonproduction path for risky tests. Set a recheck trigger for version, architecture, dependency, vendor, incident, or ownership change. A check proves only what was observed.

Official references

• RFC 8620 — The JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP) — RFC Editor / Internet Engineering Task Force