Re: [Extra] IMAP4rev2 body search

Brandon Long <blong@google.com> Thu, 23 January 2020 22:37 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9d918580-70be-4e9b-90ef-372523afe359@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <CABa8R6uyPitB24WYknQg1htC9Zm-Cw5ocx8sNjvCdoQk6k2_zQ@mail.gmail.com> <151d3e0b-e649-4e80-8a36-411afcf44d6c@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
In-Reply-To: <151d3e0b-e649-4e80-8a36-411afcf44d6c@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
From: Brandon Long <blong@google.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:36:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CABa8R6vT9dt_8Q8gF0TpWMrJ=ZES5dVO-oR9VAb5E0kUuEq3Og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
Cc: extra@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f6038f059cd647a6"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/Jki5ajGku2GE7btVLRz3K7bgRQs>
Subject: Re: [Extra] IMAP4rev2 body search
Precedence: list

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 9:41 AM Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
wrote:

> I think the key question is: Underspecifed and vague about it, or
> underspecified and defiant about it.
>
> God knows that what I suggested isn't well-written. It's a first draft,
> written in one go while I was waiting impatiently for a slow, slow program
> to finish. First drafts are too wordy 99% of the time and the
> circumstances
> weren't favourable either. But that doesn't matter. Any good text should
> IMO have the traits a) explicit about what it doesn't standardise and b)
> explicit that we want existing servers to remain compliant, warts and all.
>
> The key question is whether you all agree with me about a+b. If you do
> agree with me I can refine the prose. Or Alexey does.
>

as an author of one of the servers which definitely took liberties, I do
agree with a+b

Brandon

[Extra] IMAP4rev2 body search Arnt Gulbrandsen
Re: [Extra] IMAP4rev2 body search Brandon Long
Re: [Extra] IMAP4rev2 body search Arnt Gulbrandsen
Re: [Extra] IMAP4rev2 body search Brandon Long