Re: [Extra] imap4rev2: draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace

Michael Slusarz <michael.slusarz@open-xchange.com> Wed, 21 November 2018 18:52 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 1979F1294D0 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:52:34 -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 roQqqSQwRqsj for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:52:33 -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 E04CB12426A for <extra@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:52:32 -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 578A06A272 for <extra@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:52:31 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1542826351; bh=rV70KLVEFj5QRDIo4pydxfKehlx1UlpvHPlAhVVxe8A=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=u/GV1TKhsjlRtAFftlIZIFxaxNsCI0j0rMZQlUuAN+bh1wZM3e/MZ5HfbZNHGVmH/ q1Rxfqmo5qXSMdFlYUhztoHXrqn6X7mjTiE/KxM7OpGD3a+vc9a/u5vaV95TrPX3MI x7xYmup6mRssYpmgWZy2HbxEGLot4UQyQBHt2vzRrt/EOmOKejnvgyX/Dg4sQzPJ2d nzF4mS/wQUkHK63Cu/JptCA7yuF17FXSCN/FiAT8wZ7Pyb7Y0EQMtiVLq5tF5h7IPl HntnHA6xvnLkt6R4wOwueD3etBmT3p5dUpDYMB9INRE1p2JpaOdAp6ktcQk7p7rH4V 1l8ozTQhubvyA==
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 436AE3C06FD for <extra@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:52:31 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:52:30 -0700 (MST)
From: Michael Slusarz <michael.slusarz@open-xchange.com>
To: extra@ietf.org
Message-ID: <738498375.9779.1542826351211@appsuite.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8DD04C7-701B-4122-863D-C11A43FE7FF2@oracle.com>
References: <c44ce0cc-2193-4d0b-892c-01a3dfe68376@sloti7d1t02> <B8DD04C7-701B-4122-863D-C11A43FE7FF2@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/I4OQRZZW33ngAIP8sxc0yKRGWy8>
Subject: Re: [Extra] imap4rev2: draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace
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 18:52:34 -0000

> On November 20, 2018 at 2:43 PM Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com>; wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8 Nov 2018, at 3:44, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > This is one of the open issues from imap4rev2 - which extensions 
> > should be part of the mandatory baseline.
> >
> > This one isn't even standard yet, but it's a nice pair with MOVE as a 
> > way to avoid running into intermittent issues near QUOTA when you're 
> > doing things like editing Drafts, and it's similarly easy to implement 
> > on top of existing actions.
> >
> > Arguments for and against in response to this please.
> 
> I'm neutral on inclusion of this extension. We've not implemented it 
> yet, but it should be straightforward to implement. If enough client 
> authors are interested in making use of it, I'd consider implementing 
> it.

Neutral/slightly agree on inclusion.

No support yet in Dovecot.

Internally this is tricky for us due to our quota system design, so it's not a straightforward implementation.

michael