Re: [Extra] Review: draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-11

"Bron Gondwana" <brong@fastmailteam.com> Thu, 13 February 2020 23:47 UTC

Return-Path: <brong@fastmailteam.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 AC64E120020 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:47:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmailteam.com header.b=2sI6I4Jp; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=pwohqT7T
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 yFL9wRbATeKV for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:47:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26746120289 for <extra@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:47:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165B92208A for <extra@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:47:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imap7 ([10.202.2.57]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:47:36 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= fastmailteam.com; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :references:date:from:to:subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=nwtF2dh rAj0DMSgZuSNdsQbJHsCkwLaqJh5xnTzn24w=; b=2sI6I4JpDw92naug1NRDvYl mKXTv7y7t2z7AADt/Iza3S6NQrJfr1J5/joLR1sMXZT2ey6u6bVrKApqwSrqAfNQ xd/MJSme//KLKBIaCTRP4OmMrErr/jfKSPNs9cmp9K8NODRTbvwAYQ22rRQSr7ba 8PDFFXCkcp4zE0bfBOyU92NjYM6r892F2Cvc97UHfyLIl+eupNkYBp0s0vlyfJOl 8bCLzx5ZL5bx4H12+Cfk/d2xQOVcyOJLysvBdHztQUuzNrMQi5w2i0YqA3A68CRx Plw+5y/gkzk8iMBR/AOk+qkqbl15k0igxQy0XUBRo282UFR/iX5QL4liWfvanug= =
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=nwtF2d hrAj0DMSgZuSNdsQbJHsCkwLaqJh5xnTzn24w=; b=pwohqT7TCADG0hbF1w9p7U 4K394PlXtSnKHvOwqQ0HSZUNq/XiqynnMJEMCgZzT6nkyFqZmL3t0LboJaeGTyRm NF1JDwtWnlxlMz+AyDkCnfeA7f2m27W5IaDQD+1dXA2BkEwJRRt9nD6LVy3w/AgO a+XVLDLHxyL9b+t0bkj3zWM3Yb+ySU4dxY+MOlPYfQWhQslnLK6364nlig9AioLL 5EyfdrgXRm1sD5jQduzAc9VN2bZWeaJgUa0NWjKEgn12VCaE4HUr+TrrxTM6bVsa q7fpScuu9VosiocSD9cM4XTJgeg2pz5D8KOXiftISVc5EC8Pk7/3quvnycqip3BA ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:F-BFXjJhnvJUIrjvehSRRDwk7CIvLxOGSf0qS-n2ecvTLXimZlizvQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrieelgddufecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesrgdtre erreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdeurhhonhcuifhonhgufigrnhgrfdcuoegsrhhonhhgsehf rghsthhmrghilhhtvggrmhdrtghomheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenuc evlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegsrhhonhhg sehfrghsthhmrghilhhtvggrmhdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:F-BFXlbUUvGTkQzp49gc8T4WdIorab2K7cQbjtB9sGeSAKx5VQTqFw> <xmx:F-BFXlDwn3Xks2hSUxlimspVq9IGmPYF8_iQMxpvj-_t0aNtAxiGgA> <xmx:F-BFXvYEpqfpTTdYrSd8TGL8orb8lDiAoaPautIAXmZXXsxYVa59iw> <xmx:F-BFXnHDJMnwN66Qt3UU2aHsFK4kYP1-ZvBw_w81g3bVFDc4VYFUQw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id C74D6180091; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:47:35 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-871-gf1112c6-fmnext-20200202v1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <345e934f-e540-4b42-bd5e-8c1e1f6965f8@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <cf5e3b1d-29fd-2b58-a2a8-6ade6d7ac307@isode.com>
References: <9fdfa8e8-147d-4248-a0c1-48de171ac675@dogfood.fastmail.com> <cf5e3b1d-29fd-2b58-a2a8-6ade6d7ac307@isode.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:47:15 +1100
From: "Bron Gondwana" <brong@fastmailteam.com>
To: extra@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=b42ed1843bb541a6b5373f688aa0bb13
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/LB0kcQunT6jvlSXIpUfyDFsJC9Y>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Review: draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-11
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, 13 Feb 2020 23:47:40 -0000

Thanks Alexey, I see there's a -12 there now, and I'm happy with all the edits in it :)

There are still some outstanding points from this thread - are you expecting to issue a -13 for those?

Thanks,

Bron.

On Sat, Feb 8, 2020, at 04:04, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi Bron, 

> Replying to issues raised not covered by my reply to Timo:

> On 29/01/2020 12:08, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>> Sorry about the delay in doing this! I was supposed to be doing the shepherding write-up, and so I figured I should read it properly.
>> 
>> I've had a full read through over some very many days (I admit, I skimmed through the ABNF) and I have comments. It's long, and hopefully comprehensive - though I'm sure I missed things.
>> 
>> 
>> *2.1 Link level*
>> 
>> Is it appropriate to mention TLS on 993 here? It's mentioned deep within the document, but not here.
> Done.
> 
>> *2.3.2 Flags Message Attribute*
>> 
>> formatting issue: $Forwarded is duplicated 3 times and $MDNSent is duplicated twice in the plain-text format.
> This is actually a bug in TXT rendering from XML.

>  [snip]

>> *6.3.1 ENABLE command*
>> 
>> The example shows a conversation with an imap4rev1 only server.
> Fixed.
> 
>> The examples don't clearly show that only the newly enabled responses are correct, e.g. the sequence:
>> 
>> C1 ENABLE CONDSTORE
>> * ENABLED CONDSTORE
>> C1 OK foo
>> C2 ENABLE CONDSTORE QRESYNC
>> * ENABLED QRESYNC
>> C2 OK foo
>> 
>> The second doesn't say "ENABLED CONDSTORE" because it was already enabled earlier on this connection.
> Actually, it is perfectly Ok for the server to return in response to C2:

> * ENABLED QRESYNC CONDSTORE
> 
> The text in the document wasn't entirely clear. It was trying to say that the preferred server behaviour is:
> 
> L1 ENABLE A B
> * ENABLED A B
> L1 OK foo
> 
> L2 ENABLE C
> * ENABLED C
> L2 OK foo
> 
> and not 
> 
> L2 ENABLE C
> * ENABLED A B C
> L2 OK foo
> 
> I clarified this.
>> 
>> (AKA: clients MUST remember what they have enabled)
>> 
>> *6.3.2 SELECT command*
>> 
>> The [UIDNEXT <n>] response is duplicated with two different pieces of text.
> Again, this is a tool issue.
> 
>> *When deselecting a selected mailbox, the server MUST return an untagged OK response with the "[CLOSED]" response code when the currently selected mailbox *is closed (see Paragraph 10). ***- I'm not sure where "Paragraph 10" is.***
> I will check. I think the section reference for response codes is missing.
> 
>> The last paragraph of this section has the word "deprecated" spelled as "depractated".
> Fixed.
> 
>> 
>> *6.3.7 SUBSCRIBE*
>> 
>> Speak of the devil. Lots of sites violate the MUST NOT unilaterally remove rule. Should we weaken it to SHOULD?
> Done.
> 
>>  The justification for the MUST is "the server site might choose to do X" - well, if the server site is doing that, then maybe they SHOULDN'T unilaterally remove the subscriptions, but otherwise it's a better user experience and what people want.
>> 
>> (also: by enabling a non-default break the rules config, it's what our server does!)
>> 
>> *6.3.8 UNSUBSCRIBE*
>> 
>> *This command returns a tagged OK response only if the unsubscription is successful. *- this is not clear on what happens if the mailbox is not currently subscribed - does it silently succeed, or is there an expected error?
>> 
>> For what it's worth, our server just says "OK Completed" even if it's already been unsubscrbed - and likewise for subscribe if it's already subscribed it just say "yep, all good".
> I agree that your server behaviour is sensible. Updated description of both SUBSCRIBE and UNSUBSCRIBE.
> 
>> 
>> . create INBOX.foo
>> . OK [MAILBOXID (7eca8f55-e233-4458-9d48-af854fb4b279)] Completed
>> . subscribe INBOX.foo
>> . OK Completed
>> . unsubscribe INBOX.foo
>> . OK Completed
>> . unsubscribe INBOX.foo
>> . OK Completed
>> . subscribe INBOX.foo
>> . OK Completed
>> . subscribe INBOX.foo
>> . OK Completed
>> 
>> 
>> *6.3.9 LIST*
>> 
>> There's a weird line wrapping near the top of page 44 where a paragraph is split in half:
>> 
>>    The reference and mailbox name arguments are interpreted into a
   canonical form that represents an unambiguous left-to-right
   hierarchy.  The returned mailbox names will be in the interpreted
   form,

   that we call "canonical LIST pattern" later in this document.  To
   define the term "canonical LIST pattern" formally: it refers to the
   canonical pattern constructed internally by the server from the
   reference and mailbox name arguments.
>> 
> I will double check, but I think it is another rendering issue to TXT format (there is a comment in bettween 2 parts of the sentence.
> 
>> 
>> *6.3.9.2 LIST Return Options*
>> 
>> The CHILDREN item is duplicated with two different pieces of text.
> Again, a rendering issue. These are actually 2 separate paragraphs under the same item.

> 
>> *6.4.4 SEARCH
* 
>> 
>>    For example,
   the criteria DELETED FROM "SMITH" SINCE 1-Feb-1994 refers to all
   deleted messages from Smith that were placed in the mailbox since
   February 1, 1994.
>> 
>> 
>> That's not strictly true - SAVEDATE would be "placed in the mailbox". The wording should say "with INTERNALDATE greater than February 1, 1994" or so.
> Good point. Fixed.

> 
>> *6.4.4.1 SAVE Result*
>> 
>> I'm not sure I understand the interaction here with closing and re-opening a mailbox. I would expect that closing a mailbox would wipe the SAVED result, and that trying to use a SAVED result when there isn't one should return an error.
> I think Timo explained this well in his response.
> 
> 
>  [snip]

>> 
>> *7.1 Status Responses*
>> 
>> Using 'o' as a tag in the ALREADYEXISTS item is confusing, it looks like an attempt to do dot points!
> Changed :-).
> 
>  [snip]

> Best Regards,

> Alexey

> _______________________________________________
> Extra mailing list
> Extra@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra
> 

--
 Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
 brong@fastmailteam.com