IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Extra] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap-partial-03: (with COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Wed, 14 December 2022 15:55 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 1DA0FC15171E; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 07:55:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IPpi5ew8onaK; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 07:54:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD5BC14CE3F; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 07:54:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1671033292; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=gRKDxkHiPqEKcD/2QhFJ11YjQIEMkDzbL4AyXKaGUbw=; 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=rTEp0qyyCEwxQso0/ny6ktI2K6EDOH6+F9gFMg9/0OglEnRJSI0FeO+TzFMKRaGA3kfDp5 LOlZcieXZ9gqceYBK3yhAsuD6+XpI77c24BCjv84t0KS4qGplhEciVmlfxeBtA2D3+hl61 bWslVXAnPRirWk9XTxOZUI/40KTfQeo=;
Received: from [192.168.1.222] (host31-49-219-103.range31-49.btcentralplus.com [31.49.219.103]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <Y5nxywBS6Kv-@waldorf.isode.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:54:52 +0000
Message-ID: <e868474d-795a-448a-791a-5a365b03d362@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:54:49 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0
To: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <Zaheduzzaman.Sarker@ericsson.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-extra-imap-partial@ietf.org, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, brong@fastmailteam.com
References: <167103071323.47175.2604307777116500569@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <167103071323.47175.2604307777116500569@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/Xl8qAhJasB6odbDgPVB4jfluN2M>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap-partial-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:55:00 -0000

Hi,

Thank you for your comments!

On 14/12/2022 15:11, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for working on this specification.
>
> I have following comments -
>
> * Abstract and Section 1 : can't parse what "RFC 5267 and RFC 4731/RFC 9051"
> supposed to mean.

RFC 5267 defined the original PARTIAL return option definition that this 
document extends.

RFC 4731 defined the ALL, COUNT, MIN and MAX return options. RFC 9051 
absorbed RFC 4731 into IMAP4rev2.

Any suggestions on how to clarify this?

> A more verbose version would be helpful. I am guessing "RFC
> 3501/RFC 9051" defined in IMAP version 1 and version 2 both are in scope.
Yes.
> * Please add a ref to ESEARCH on the first appearance of it in section 3.1.
Ok, I will add a reference to RFC 4731 and RFC 9051.
> * Section 3.2 : says - "Note for the table: '[m]' means optional "MIN" and/or
> "MAX"". This confuses me, as I didn't find any clarification on how to
> interpret m whether it is a MIN or MAX, or MIN and MAX.
The result is the same whether MIN or MAX are present or absent in this 
case.
> * Section 4 : I think it is better idea to be explicit that the format applies
> (or not applies then we have issues :-) ) to RFC9051.

It applies to both. I will clarify.

Best Regards,

Alexey

>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email