Re: [Extra] In favour of OBJECTID being inculded in IMAP4REV2 - please reply by Friday!

Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Wed, 20 November 2019 11:47 UTC

Return-Path: <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
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 B96A6120AC7 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:47:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gulbrandsen.priv.no
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 yRjQ4cH6P1OX for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:91a8::3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56F52120AC6 for <extra@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 03:47:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no [IPv6:2a01:4f8:191:91a8::3]) by stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43A1EC0075; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:51:07 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gulbrandsen.priv.no; s=mail; t=1574250667; bh=7iAEOJYShKpyTqcMB8Pe2c8U+HaWaroCFHjcz5smpB4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=KVNKVISOnuBJXVrTwx35Oa3HjQtJaeXehiHk08UBXcCnGDocZOniH/gmUSxYNwbrQ tYO9T14evSpxhjf9bC1PrAZ3wgQ3FGHJuSy9hBEQEshuFDJfY6OYVrzJypdG4L1b4A MWKmuHltOqdzSBuQ1KriHz/Rcg3IhRTCh3wDkJ/4=
Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by stabil.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1574250666-28749-28747/9/15; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:51:06 +0000
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
To: extra@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 12:47:14 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <2cc95212-9c81-40d7-acbf-48e5f8873732@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
In-Reply-To: <d1df7721-fd27-4d57-8630-d20aa8b3aa05@dogfood.fastmail.com>
References: <51568edb-792c-46b7-a2b2-3f0a1ac91997@dogfood.fastmail.com> <9583d392-d699-486a-9111-b8a0288d2cda@dogfood.fastmail.com> <d1df7721-fd27-4d57-8630-d20aa8b3aa05@dogfood.fastmail.com>
User-Agent: Trojita/0.7; Qt/5.7.1; xcb; Linux; Devuan GNU/Linux 2.1 (ascii)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/9esjImcPwgjH9dl489ke_H3IFUk>
Subject: Re: [Extra] In favour of OBJECTID being inculded in IMAP4REV2 - please reply by Friday!
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, 20 Nov 2019 11:47:20 -0000

On Wednesday 20 November 2019 08:55:26 CET, Neil Jenkins wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2019, at 15:49, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> 2) include RFC8474 naming and behaviour in IMAP4REV2 but weaken 
> the MUSTs around keeping IDs the same.
>
> I am not in favour of this. It basically removes the whole 
> point of OBJECTID. If it's mandatory, you need to implement it 
> properly. Either mandatory or not is fine (I'd prefer it in, but 
> worth consulting implementors), but let's not change its 
> semantics.

Does it really remove the whole point? I see two kinds of MUSTs:

  Two equal IDs MUST refer to they same object
  Two different IDs MUST refer to different objects

The former has to be a MUST, but the latter could be downgraded to SHOULD 
and still leave significant value.... unless I'm overlooking something?

Arnt