IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Extra] Some comments on draft-ietf-extra-imap-64bit

"HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com> Mon, 18 September 2017 01:23 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.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 8B7D61321A1 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 18:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 cvOFOwpMpUDs for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 18:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CC781201F8 for <extra@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 18:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0053301.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v8I1K0Nl047273; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:23:31 -0400
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2d1y21ns53-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:23:31 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8I1NUmb019803; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:23:30 -0400
Received: from mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.240]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8I1NNrL019754 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:23:25 -0400
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAA.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUBAA.itservices.sbc.com [130.9.129.145]) by mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 18 Sep 2017 01:23:12 GMT
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRCG.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.7.42]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAA.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.145]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:23:12 -0400
From: "HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
CC: "extra@ietf.org" <extra@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Extra] Some comments on draft-ietf-extra-imap-64bit
Thread-Index: AQHTLjyzEUxMoGssrEKjuhHxaYcDsqK2ZQOAgAF+xQCAAAQ5gIACN/WA
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 01:23:11 +0000
Message-ID: <81476CCC-363D-4713-B6EA-3CA2C54AAE69@att.com>
References: <0871fcf6-f0c5-a4b7-f1e4-7a535d78d776@rename-it.nl> <DA5AEDAF-E697-4116-856C-AED989301055@att.com> <1505574916.3734961.1108226832.6279CACB@webmail.messagingengine.com> <95F5ABD0-EB0F-4B41-89EE-6DD438B2061E@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <95F5ABD0-EB0F-4B41-89EE-6DD438B2061E@isode.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.210.5.149]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_81476CCC363D4713B6EA3CA2C54AAE69attcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-09-17_16:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1707230000 definitions=main-1709180017
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/Zrr7C987EgS-cgGsPvUJkZfMOzI>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Some comments on draft-ietf-extra-imap-64bit
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: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 01:23:37 -0000

Suggested text changes:

Intro:
OLD: IMAP [RFC3501<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3501>] only allows body parts or message sizes which are
OLD:   32bit. This document introduces an IMAP extension that allows for
OLD:   message and body part sizes to be 63bit.

NEW: IMAP [RFC3501<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3501>] only allows body parts or message sizes which are
NEW:   expressible in a 32bit unsigned value. This document introduces an IMAP extension that allows for
NEW:   message and body part sizes to be expressible in an unsigned value that can be held in a 64bit signed value.
NEW:   (Because of the sign bit in 2s-complement notation, this has an effective size of 63bits.)


                Tony Hansen


From: Extra <extra-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Date: Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 11:27 AM
To: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>
Cc: "extra@ietf.org" <extra@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Some comments on draft-ietf-extra-imap-64bit


On 16 Sep 2017, at 16:15, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com<mailto:brong@fastmailteam.com>> wrote:
Yeah, round tripping via a signed 64 bit value is nice.
Basically for compatibility with Java.


On Sat, 16 Sep 2017, at 02:25, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
On 9/15/17, 12:07 PM, "Extra on behalf of Stephan Bosch"
<extra-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:extra-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of stephan@rename-it.nl<mailto:stephan@rename-it.nl>> wrote:

    I gave draft-ietf-extra-imap-64bit a quick look. I have a few
    comments


I too have a couple comments. If it’s called the 64bit extension, why are
the numbers limited to 63 bits? Why not the full 64-bit range?

I’m sure there’s a good reason (or perhaps not).

Tony Hansen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email