Re: [Extra] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-list-myrights-05

[Arnt Gulbrandsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry,

I like this one better when the problems are the client's to deal with.

Rationale:

Modern clients use several connections, either concurrent or sequential, 
and do things like reconnect from another IP address if move in/out of WLAN 
coverage.

Therefore, it's not easy for the server to know what it has sent the 
client. The current wording seems to take good care of order within the 
processing of a single IMAP command, but does nothing for several-command 
sequences or clients that base their commands on cached memories of 
yesterday's commands and responses. If a client decides that it doesn't 
need to rerun LIST because it ran that only yesterday, etc.

So, I suggest saying "Clients SHOULD be aware that a MYRIGHTS response may 
name a mailbox that the client has not been told about" and requiring 
nothing particular of the server.

Arnt