Re: [Extra] I-D Action: draft-ietf-extra-imap-64bit-03.txt
"Chris Newman" <chris.newman@oracle.com> Mon, 05 March 2018 23:31 UTC
Return-Path: <chris.newman@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F95712EB5A for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:31:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eFGnk8cqdZ-W for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:31:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com (aserp2120.oracle.com [141.146.126.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80DD3120227 for <extra@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 15:31:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w25NVdIa002417 for <extra@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 23:31:39 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type; s=corp-2017-10-26; bh=ptWCDcf+XdAue62r4P0xycYRCUwacLOqUrdgAwOKMmo=; b=KG6ybYLo4WR0LIMTTTyjM6N9Xn2v/wSOQed+Vdvd/32OY4xHPViuzolxy4ZLFHD2GiJu wccq4d5C/qFeJcwi7ck/y2LQph/6aiQ1mh1UzfmL27C1t0nU2UPvvO0Ndg9iNhfvLGyU G2U/4C3OUek0UvPCjTuTP/TvLkBxkYLt1YJbk1F0YzXyJkdqHrN9eW1sFPJEaXy7Es7v uBH29AzNn4ygEn5L6GQRwdUoY3VVmtQseD9Zm8yOH6qgUDLOuVfMSwTz0x36+nnbusbj nSdEyFhfkpEokxgoCqURmL/bNxqbbMJx/VQ4jxKj4nyEmMv6uf19vD/BDqd3yTlMXMZt 6g==
Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2ghe3kgbjq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for <extra@ietf.org>; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 23:31:38 +0000
Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w25NVY6e011020 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <extra@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 23:31:35 GMT
Received: from abhmp0004.oracle.com (abhmp0004.oracle.com [141.146.116.10]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w25NVYG2024452 for <extra@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 23:31:34 GMT
Received: from [10.145.183.55] (/10.145.183.55) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 05 Mar 2018 15:31:34 -0800
From: Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com>
To: extra@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 15:31:29 -0800
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.10r5443)
Message-ID: <111D54E3-27EE-4D2E-8EFD-1FA0879A8E22@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <152018441102.11996.16139669468419652701@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <152018441102.11996.16139669468419652701@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=8823 signatures=668683
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=13 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=518 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1803050267
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/2o8kVlxhPPIrzYjxEfnIDQ8wlGY>
Subject: Re: [Extra] I-D Action: draft-ietf-extra-imap-64bit-03.txt
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <extra.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/extra/>
List-Post: <mailto:extra@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 23:32:05 -0000
On 4 Mar 2018, at 9:26, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Email mailstore and eXtensions To > Revise or Amend WG of the IETF. > > Title : 64bit body part and message sizes in IMAP4 > Authors : Alexey Melnikov > Jayantheesh S B > Filename : draft-ietf-extra-imap-64bit-03.txt > Pages : 7 > Date : 2018-03-04 > > Abstract: > This document defines an IMAPv4rev1 extension that extends the > existing IMAPv4rev1 32 Bit message and body part sizes to 63 bit. > Both the base IMAP specification (RFC 3501) and several extensions > are updated. I reviewed this document. This document fails to state how the server should respond if a message in a mailbox has a size larger than 32-bit when a traditional IMAP client accesses that mailbox. What value does the server provide for the SIZE FETCH attribute in this case? Can a server return NO on select of a mailbox with a jumbo message when the client is a "legacy" client? Where are the examples of this behavior in the specification? What is the end-user experience for this? If a legacy end-user has a shared mailbox and allows another user to append a "jumbo" message to the shared mailbox, will that create a hidden channel problem? Would we need a separate ACL bit or flag of some sort to grant permission to insert "jumbo" messages into a mailbox to avoid such problems? This isn't merely changing the protocol, it's changing the implied persistent mail store format in an incompatible fashion. This has serious backwards compatibility issues for clients not updated to support this. A change like this requires both a solid justification and discussion of the compatibility implications (see RFC 6855). I believe this document is incomplete and inappropriate for advancement until it covers both topics. Setting a precedent that it's ok to change the implied persistent mail store semantics without strong justification is something I oppose. I note that this does not appear to change the IMAP UID to be 64-bit although it doesn't say why. This is also an omission from the document. Finally, if we're getting into the business of changing persistent storage semantics, I'd like to do it as few times as possible to minimize overall disruption to the infrastructure. There's a clear need for a unique message identifier that is not mailbox-specific. That's also an incompatible change to the implied persistent storage semantics. If we're going to make that change at some point in the future (something I would support on the grounds of compatibility with both JMAP and deployed mail services with tag-based mailboxes), I'd like to see both proposed incompatible persistent storage format changes made at the same time to minimize the disruption to the infrastructure. I also note that this change forces an IMAP URL resolver to either unconditionally send "enable 64bit" (if the capability is present) or to try once and retry with "enable 64bit" if the first attempt fails in a way that is recognizable (something presently not specified). Both options are a significant increase in the complexity of such a URL resolver. At this point, I find this proposal to be high cost/disruption with no stated benefit or justification. I presently oppose advancement of this proposal. - Chris
- [Extra] I-D Action: draft-ietf-extra-imap-64bit-0… internet-drafts
- Re: [Extra] I-D Action: draft-ietf-extra-imap-64b… Chris Newman