Re: [Extra] I-D Action: draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-29.txt

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Timo,

On 15/02/2021 13:11, Timo Sirainen wrote:

> On 13. Feb 2021, at 17.46, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 13/02/2021 16:41, [e-mail] wrote:
>>
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2/
>>>
>>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-29
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-29
>>>
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-29
>> This version addresses almost all remaining comments from Ben's IESG review. It also cleans up language about which capabilities are required on cleartext and which are required on implicit TLS port. And finally I updated a NAMESPACE related example to show use of special-use mailbox attributes to determine what mailbox names to create for sent and deleted mail.
> This is a bit confusing:
>
>>     The client is configured to save a copy of all mail sent by the user
>>     into a mailbox with the \Sent attribute.  Furthermore, after a
>>     message is deleted from a mailbox, the client is configured to move
>>     that message to a mailbox with the \Trash attribute.  The server
>>     signals specific mailbox names that should be used for these purposed
>>     by returning LIST responses with \NonExistent attribute.  I.e. the
>>     server is hinting to the client which mailbox names to use for sent
>>     and deleted messages.
> Especially the sentence "The server signals specific mailbox names that should be used for these purposed by returning LIST responses with \NonExistent attribute" was very confusing to me. It should rather say something that the \NonExistent signals that the folders don't exist yet, and that it's possible to create any one of them and then they could be used for the \Sent or \Trash purposes. After they are created the \NonExistent would drop away.
Fine, I can reword as you suggest.
> Although I've a feeling many clients won't be able to handle this kind of multiple namespaces properly anyway.
This is probably true and I am not sure much can be done about that.
> And I've a feeling that even seeing (\NonExistent \Trash) LIST reply is going to confuse them.

This is not really a new problem for IMAP4rev2. I suspect clients that 
want to support this, but don't at the moment, would need to be updated.

I coded this in our client, because this is the only way to announce 
special use mailbox names, when the server doesn't support special use 
mailbox creation.

Best Regards,

Alexey