Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area review of draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-06

Robert Sparks <> Thu, 02 May 2013 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AEF221F84B2; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.298
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.301, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IsUA5mPT34gS; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B29A21F86B1; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r42Eu7bo058261 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 2 May 2013 09:56:07 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 09:56:09 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000200030601060503060806"
Received-SPF: pass ( is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc:, Apps Area WG <>, IESG <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Area review of draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 14:56:18 -0000

On 5/1/13 5:05 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Hi, Robert (and Martin).  A couple of notes here:
>> Minor issue: The draft should reference RFC 6855 (IMAP Support for UTF-8)
>> and require its support *at least* to the extent that RFC 6778 does (see
>> I will work to sew in a reference to 6855
> It's probably best to note that "support for 6855 is desirable," and
> not really anything more than that.  Let's also remember that there's
> not really any deployment of 6855 support yet, in clients or servers.
Any reason to not just copy what we put in 6778 with minor tweaks?

3.  Internationalized Address Considerations

    The implementation should anticipate internationalized
    email addresses as discussed in the following three documents --
    [RFC6531], [RFC6532], and [RFC6855].  There is no firm requirement
    at this time.

>> "and should support multiple simultaneous extensive searches.": Is this
>> simultaneous searches by the same user, or by different users? I suspect the
>> later. If so, the clause should be rewritten so that it is clear that this
>> is a dimensioning requirement, not a functionality requirement.
>> I think it's _both_, not one or the other. I will attempt to clarify.
> Be careful here:
> In IMAP terms, what mostly matters is the session, not the user (but
> see below).  It's theoretically possible for an IMAP server to run
> multiple searches in the same session in parallel without multimailbox
> search (RFC 6237), but it's not practical for a number of reasons, and
> isn't supported by any IMAP servers I'm aware of.  And there's already
> a reference to 6237 later in the paragraph.
> IMAP servers already do have to deal with multiple sessions for the
> same user, and it's well know that limits might need to be put on
> that: how many sessions one user can log in with, and how many
> resources those sessions can consume.  This document shouldn't be
> trying to deal with standard advice for things all IMAP servers need
> to consider.
> I take the sentence in question to address capacity, not function.  If
> anything here needs clarification, it's that.  I don't think it makes
> sense for this bullet to go into details of sessions vs users vs
> anything else.

I think you're arguing for not changing the text?
I've taken a stab at punching up "capacity". There wasn't anything obvious.
Does this help (I don't really think it does, but haven't come up with 
anything better):

<t hangText="o">
The interface must have server-side searching enabled, and should scale 
to support multiple simultaneous extensive searches.  The server should 
provide the enhanced search capabilities described in <xref 
target="RFC6778"/>.   The implementation should consider taking 
advantage of the extensions defined for IMAP SORT and THREAD <xref 
target="RFC5256"/>, multimailbox search <xref target="RFC6237"/>, and 
fuzzy search <xref target="RFC6203"/>.</t>