Re: [Extra] AD review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-status-size-01

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Tue, 15 May 2018 10:05 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 56E4B12D88A for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2018 03:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.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 5gD7TXydYCPG for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2018 03:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from statler.isode.com (Statler.isode.com [62.232.206.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97BED12D868 for <extra@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2018 03:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1526378706; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=TWQ1+DaxRpisqrFHQ5Ld4Ss/NYme2FU3/Ra0Hvban0w=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=fKrZHZOAoyfqk/XwFgHaH6O+QEoyh3cYEN3qo0U2dtmEwbUonJqmHeh8rPRVCLXITj1u0Z fOSJt6xyFovF8IHFMbbUT1ZQ2JLcLdxX7n9kQDeuFnl4wbJA1u+GrwbdRwk+haePXtiRJ7 AXXDpr4F4j1KyMGr1o+O7YQZsSx7EWs=;
Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <Wvqw0gAi72uW@statler.isode.com>; Tue, 15 May 2018 11:05:06 +0100
To: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, extra@ietf.org
References: <5AE207FD.8020203@isode.com> <71D1116A-0D02-424B-9B22-58110DD8202D@oracle.com> <D6002572-B87C-47FA-98A1-D963F25F5B0E@oracle.com> <9e94523e-d12d-e61c-d63b-e54dea7fd33e@dovecot.fi> <84D7D0C7-B12B-4DF2-B059-010CCE8F8271@oracle.com> <1526004063.3372904.1368184696.34A255D8@webmail.messagingengine.com> <EFB3AA82-1076-4947-AACA-63102C5220CE@oracle.com> <1526346858.1919476.1372147984.7BBDC9FC@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <f8d52d37-cdac-808c-9e12-2397d0139b6d@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 11:04:55 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
In-Reply-To: <1526346858.1919476.1372147984.7BBDC9FC@webmail.messagingengine.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------768E7987AB2F571B336A4403"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/PYLoOnH__F5UuPF8wbhIkLpITPc>
Subject: Re: [Extra] AD review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-status-size-01
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 15 May 2018 10:05:09 -0000


On 15/05/2018 02:14, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2018, at 09:54, Chris Newman wrote:
>> On 10 May 2018, at 19:01, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>>
>>     My opinion is - just define this response as a 63 bit number.
>>
>>     Crappy thing here with RFC4466 is:
>>
>>       tagged-ext-simple   = sequence-set / number
>>
>>     And "number" is defined in RFC3501:
>>
>>     number          = 1*DIGIT ; Unsigned 32-bit integer ; (0 <= n <
>>     4,294,967,296)
>>
>>     Which means that the response SHOULD be:
>>
>>     "SIZE" SP "(" number63 ")"  rather than "SIZE" SP number63 to be
>>     tagged-ext.
>>
>>
>> Clients have a parser. That parser will either support 32-bit numbers or
>> 63-bit numbers. Clients implementing SIZE should just support 63-bit
>> numbers; that's less client code than supporting 32-bit numbers outside
>> parens and 63-bit numbers inside parens; thus less risk of bugs. The
>> extra parentheses make the parser more complex for no good reason. The
>> extra parentheses make the extension incompatible with an already
>> implemented extension in my server for no good reason (yes, I'm willing
>> to make incompatible changes to private extensions, but only if there is
>> a technical reason to do so). I object to adding the extra parentheses
>> for those two reasons.
>
> I'm totally fine with all those reasons.

I am fine with increasing the numeric range for "tagged-ext-simple".

>   Do we need to do a 4466bis for this,

Maybe :-).

> or do we let that get folded with the 64bit extension work in general 
> and IMAP4rev2?

I am happy to do this in IMAP4rev2. If people also want to have 
rfc4466bis, this can be done as well.

> I'm pretty keen to say that "IMAP4rev2 will fix it" about irrelevant 
> things like this, but I think it's good to have the discussion and 
> have a clear answer for why we're going with a number without parens - 
> particularly since OBJECTID is doing parans everywhere.