Re: [Extra] imap4rev2: RFC8474 OBJECTID

Michael Slusarz <michael.slusarz@open-xchange.com> Wed, 21 November 2018 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <michael.slusarz@open-xchange.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 F2A8812875B for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:48:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.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 j0xnTAqGQvbR for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:48:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 7A30D12426A for <extra@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:48:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F7726A272 for <extra@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:48:02 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1542826082; bh=KJxbVcLE6Qta6rSrWHeS1h3PYIGr+PKLBDR3mkvvSqs=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=Kj/Xgr7yQXA8ZtvBpVrrwzOMtZhtJNz/t61dGnwUgGBAxhqRNQNc1FBKRIuGSPz7Q RjFsppftnQ8nrNScdFe7ip9CrERs5S2JCvrX1HS4a2dmxsTh8tNeceLxgDFBu+QkXN 9sEVWg6iIngUJOAMHIsF+HigmlN77jO1xYNklo5wb4MrNntbS7piKkFmsVpiPIO4Kr rEqmkpJpS7FYhe9bPQJtsKTU4XSK5jmBQu5pIx9O9uoPozpMFODIiJz85SbFPoCWLB pKi2CvNTnmaI6eck8FQsizPuGx10KG1Nn44W7Si6t0KsQw0ydMFYk6sModu9wpJ3sM YKWmuodVJei6Q==
Received: from appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 649773C06FD for <extra@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:48:02 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:48:02 -0700 (MST)
From: Michael Slusarz <michael.slusarz@open-xchange.com>
To: extra@ietf.org
Message-ID: <1619478286.9776.1542826082345@appsuite.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <7C112497-CA9C-4926-B3B1-4E3440CE9365@oracle.com>
References: <6f804b07-35bd-4ca3-ad84-bf69daeaa6e9@sloti7d1t02> <7C112497-CA9C-4926-B3B1-4E3440CE9365@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Medium
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.0-Rev20
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/9-hEpNOrcJryfMgMYkhrgqSPs8Q>
Subject: Re: [Extra] imap4rev2: RFC8474 OBJECTID
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 18:48:07 -0000

> On November 20, 2018 at 2:41 PM Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com>; wrote:
> 
> We've implemented an extension equivalent to MAILBOXID already; no 
> objections to that part. As THREADID is optional, no objections to that. 
> We've not implemented EMAILID yet. I believe FETCH of EMAILID is 
> reasonably straightforward, but SEARCH by EMAILID may add significant 
> complexity, particularly with respect to search index version migration 
> issues. As a result of the latter issue, it will be difficult for us to 
> find cycles to implement and test OBJECTID, so I oppose mandatory 
> inclusion of OBJECTID in IMAP4rev2.

We have the internal support for much of this already - it's just a matter of exposing this via the standard API.

We are working on a project now that essentially requires THREADID for performance reasons, but it's also the hardest to implement since it requires implementation of a thread tracking database to efficiently handle these queries.  I can't think of any other "optional" items in base imap4 at the moment, so this would be a bit of an outlier.

And I would think that we see more use cases for thread based access models going forward, as messaging in general has moved in that direction in the last decade.

But with THREADID being the most interesting part of this, and it being optional, there doesn't seem much difference between having in rev2 or having as an extension since there is no guarantee it will exist either way.  So this seems better left as an extension at this time.

michael


> On 8 Nov 2018, at 3:32, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > This is one of the open issues from imap4rev2 - which extensions 
> > should be part of the mandatory baseline.
> >
> > In favour - it's very useful for client efficiency, and maps to very 
> > popular Gmail extensions.
> >
> > Against - it's very new, and not widely implemented yet.