Re: [Extra] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace-02: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 24 October 2018 02:24 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 2FD30130E41; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 19:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <AWG5VyqmIxBu>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char 9C hex): Received: ...s kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)\n\t\234by outgoing.mit[...]
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 AWG5VyqmIxBu; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 19:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu [18.9.25.12]) (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 01AE3130DD2; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 19:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 1209190c-579ff70000000dcf-53-5bcfd7c86c03
Received: from mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.36]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-1.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 4F.5E.03535.9C7DFCB5; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 22:24:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.9.2) with ESMTP id w9O2O3Vj010421; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 22:24:05 -0400
Received: from kduck.kaduk.org (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) �by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id w9O2NxPt012367 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 22:24:01 -0400
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:23:58 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Stuart Brandt <stujenerin@aol.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace@ietf.org, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20181024022358.GQ45914@kduck.kaduk.org>
References: <154032941464.31269.3192588777781367014.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5BCFD689.3040004@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5BCFD689.3040004@aol.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmphleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IRYrdT0T15/Xy0weL1GhZ/zsxntXi0ZyWb xayVbUwW/6/2MFvM+DOR2aLrZbgDm8f93SvZPS5/b2XyWLLkJ1MAcxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJX xvXjK9gLfgpVXP6yjrmBcTZ/FyMnh4SAicSC+TNYuhi5OIQE1jBJvO+YzQrhbGSU+NY+mQ3C ucsksbxvFztIC4uAqsSkk2sZQWw2ARWJhu7LzCC2iICaxNdbc9lBGpgFljJKbJjSCNYgLJAg 0d90DMzmBdq37OFEMFtIIEvi3bZ3zBBxQYmTM5+wgNjMAloSN/69ZOpi5ACypSWW/+MACXMK qEucOfafCcQWFVCW2Nt3iH0Co8AsJN2zkHTPQuhewMi8ilE2JbdKNzcxM6c4NVm3ODkxLy+1 SNdQLzezRC81pXQTIyiwOSV5djCeeeN1iFGAg1GJh/dA7floIdbEsuLK3EOMkhxMSqK8Vw8D hfiS8lMqMxKLM+KLSnNSiw8xSnAwK4nwKmsA5XhTEiurUovyYVLSHCxK4rwTWhZHCwmkJ5ak ZqemFqQWwWRlODiUJHjnXQNqFCxKTU+tSMvMKUFIM3FwggznARq+CqSGt7ggMbc4Mx0if4pR UUqc99BVoIQASCKjNA+uF5R4JLL317xiFAd6RZh3N0g7DzBpwXW/AhrMBDT4uvoZkMEliQgp qQZGbaXnyxco5zn/Wl59eAW70MnYP2/YrlZK8fjXZUv4125k/MRbMPMIU7pJ44H05xVzn7jc qn5tIh73goHzRt7Mu1/rJBY5aq3jj8zIfZFT7h/6Kv7BgtVvWK0WvDdrcMpZnjtruiDfLoUv 2f2GM1sWOx/eVWyYlW9Q3e51f06hbWELtxZnVJESS3FGoqEWc1FxIgBT0qF3FwMAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/FfkY1KsGE-U1j3dRZ2IOd19QFus>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace-02: (with COMMENT)
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, 24 Oct 2018 02:24:16 -0000

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:18:49PM -0400, Stuart Brandt wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. Comments inline.
> 
> On 10/23/2018 5:16 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace-02: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Section 1
> >
> > (RFC 8174 provides an updated version of the BCP 14 boilerplate that can be
> > used instead of the RFC 2119 boilerplate.)
> >
> > Section 3.5
> >
> >     Unlike the APPEND command which is valid in the authenticated state,
> >     the REPLACE and UID REPLACE commands MUST only be valid in the
> >     selected state.  This difference from APPEND is necessary since
> >     REPLACE operates on message sequence numbers.
> >
> > The stated justification applies only to REPLACE.  What is the
> > justification for disallowing UID REPLACE from the authenticated state?
> 
> The syntax of REPLACE identifies the source message's Mailbox by means 
> of the currently selected Mailbox, thus requiring Selected state.
> 
> An optional source-mailbox parameter could be added to the syntax just 
> for the UID REPLACE case, but other UID command variants such as those 
> discussed in RFC3501 section 6.4.8 chose not to introduce UID specific 
> syntax for specifying source-mailbox in order to support actions from 
> Authenticated state alone. I'd prefer not to forge new ground in that 
> area with this particular specification.

I probably should have made it clear: I also prefer to not forge such new
ground in this specification.  But does it make sense to make a nod to this
reality in the document and note that this restriction is also applied to
UID REPLACE for consistency?

Thanks,

Benjamin