Re: [Extra] AD review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-fetch-preview-00

Michael Slusarz <michael.slusarz@open-xchange.com> Thu, 14 February 2019 02:46 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 A9383130DE4 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:46:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 IcOhT8bVnZRN for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:46:50 -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 E8DCB130EBC for <extra@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:46:49 -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 BBFE36A258; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 03:46:47 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1550112407; bh=OiiBdyejpYK3JAp4wX7a7BPP+WUcYxZlAYBWU06kuzA=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=e1neiGRsTRAJNfQPkn1VuMzTXhgEjtw1tr9MgiHM8kYf1D/i+/t7qmPk3xJ1sjOH7 YSq4+DQKIHnLa3Y794hROZ3cBBEMD+Xj+SrOmt0Uxoi3IzuZTLdDpCf4MAQNQhduiG Q6ZmaySYAZe/KKLRliXjUR6VwxAmlBH3f9xKks2x83g0IgRiKL6YTze6qZwUkeKcSm qnTJHL1FUrkW1SqPRi2zac14niws4KIP9pf38nAAV0QoB+bLmb/FbIclAjBZwQCjeE uE+VcV8d1xMth7dms7SMCDBvWA9dL07NLKRYd6orVaIKfzdbdZDqbGguzakDsYdq7j UASV1xST5+H3A==
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 9B6E53C0856; Thu, 14 Feb 2019 03:46:47 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 19:46:47 -0700 (MST)
From: Michael Slusarz <michael.slusarz@open-xchange.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, extra@ietf.org
Message-ID: <361579642.14283.1550112407559@appsuite.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <3e8d0400-e80e-d2b9-60ff-6f46e483338a@isode.com>
References: <8c0e5e45-5646-f609-354a-077594228b9d@isode.com> <1755730477.52872.1548118101625@appsuite.open-xchange.com> <b4a48153-0d51-4ec6-00a5-6a30743d9de0@isode.com> <1199097368.56484.1548189351045@appsuite.open-xchange.com> <3e8d0400-e80e-d2b9-60ff-6f46e483338a@isode.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 v7.10.1-Rev7
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/E413BKNw3cqYHn6VjTu9UJQYqvg>
Subject: Re: [Extra] AD review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-fetch-preview-00
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: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 02:46:52 -0000

> On January 23, 2019 at 8:03 AM Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
> 
> On 22/01/2019 20:35, Michael Slusarz wrote:
>
> >> "New algorithm names MUST be registered with IANA and MUST conform with the recommendations described in RFC 6648, Section 3"
> > On additional review, and re-reading RFC 6648, I think the correct language is to omit the "MUST be registered" language.
> >
> > One of the goals of this spec is to allow flexibility for local implementers to expand the PREVIEW functionality as they see fit.  (We are already thinking about at least one additional algorithm we might implement.)  These additional algorithms/modifiers may only be relevant to a single project/customer/use-case however, so they are not necessarily something that will ever be standardized.
> While this is true, it would still be useful to register these to avoid 
> name collisions. This is probably the main point for having an IANA 
> registry.

[snip]

> Personally, I prefer everything to be registered, even if it is not 
> standardized. Maybe "SHOULD be registered with IANA"? What do other 
> people think?

I've deferred to your reasoning, and added the "SHOULD be registered" bit to the latest version.

michael