Re: [Extra] WGLC review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-list-myrights-02

[Ken Murchison <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry,

Thanks for the review.  Changes have been made in the working copy:
<https://github.com/ietfextra/tracking/commit/436c8e56970cdf4bef73cbd887c1ee4eaf55b85d>

https://github.com/ietfextra/tracking/commit/436c8e56970cdf4bef73cbd887c1ee4eaf55b85d



On 03/26/2018 05:42 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> The document's in very good shape and is almost ready.  I have a
> couple of minor points below.
>
> — Section 3 —
>
>     For each listable mailbox matching
>     the list pattern and selection options, the server MUST return an
>     untagged LIST response followed by an untagged MYRIGHTS response
>     containing the set of rights granted to the logged-in user.
>
> We don’t usually specify any particular ordering for untagged
> responses, and for the most part, ordering is not significant.  I
> presume it’s not significant here, and that both of the following
> would be equally acceptable to a client:
>
>     C: A01 LIST "" % RETURN (MYRIGHTS)
>     S: * LIST () "." "INBOX"
>     S: * MYRIGHTS "INBOX" lrswipkxtecda
>     S: * LIST () "." "foo"
>     S: * MYRIGHTS "foo" lrs
>     S: A01 OK List completed.
>
>     C: A01 LIST "" % RETURN (MYRIGHTS)
>     S: * LIST () "." "INBOX"
>     S: * LIST () "." "foo"
>     S: * MYRIGHTS "foo" lrs
>     S: * MYRIGHTS "INBOX" lrswipkxtecda
>     S: A01 OK List completed.
>
> Now, one wonders whether this would also be acceptable:
>
>     C: A01 LIST "" % RETURN (MYRIGHTS)
>     S: * MYRIGHTS "foo" lrs
>     S: * MYRIGHTS "INBOX" lrswipkxtecda
>     S: * LIST () "." "INBOX"
>     S: * LIST () "." "foo"
>     S: A01 OK List completed.
>
> …as a client might not be happy seeing MYRIGHTS responses for
> mailboxes for which it has not yet seen a LIST response.
>
> Also, the MUST attached to the production of the MYRIGHTS response is
> contradicted by the MAY in the next paragraph.
>
> I think we shouldn’t imply that the responses have to be interleaved,
> and we should point out that the MYRIGHTS response for a given mailbox
> can’t precede the LIST response for that mailbox.  Maybe this?:
>
> NEW
>     For each listable mailbox matching
>     the list pattern and selection options, the server MUST return an
>     untagged LIST response and SHOULD also return an untagged MYRIGHTS
>     response containing the set of rights granted to the logged-in user.
>     The ordering of the responses is significant only in that the server
>     MUST NOT send a MYRIGHTS for a given mailbox before it sends that
>     mailbox’s LIST response.
> END
>
> Now, as to the following paragraph that explains the SHOULD:
>
>     If the server is unable to look up the set of rights for a given
>     mailbox, it MAY drop the corresponding MYRIGHTS reply.
>
> What else could it do?  If there are other reasonable choices, we
> should say what they are.  If not, we shouldn’t imply that there are.
> And it’s not really a MAY; the server has to do something reasonable,
> so I suggest one of the following:
>
> NEW-1
>     If the server is unable to look up the set of rights for a given
>     mailbox, it does not send the MYRIGHTS reply for that mailbox.
> END
>
> NEW-2
>     If the server is unable to look up the set of rights for a given
>     mailbox, it either does not send the MYRIGHTS reply for that
>     mailbox or <—fill in other possible actions here—>.
> END
>
> — Section 8 —
> It’s always a good idea to give IANA the full name of the registry,
> rather than citing where the registry is defined (this is highlighted
> by the fact that there are two registries “defined in Section 9 of
> [RFC5258]”):
>
> OLD
>     This document defines the "LIST-MYRIGHTS" IMAP capability to be added
>     to the registry defined in Section 12 of [RFC3501].
> NEW
>     This document defines the "LIST-MYRIGHTS" IMAP capability to be added
>     to the “IMAP Capabilities” registry:
>     <https://www.iana.org/assignments/imap-capabilities#imap-capabilities-1>
> END
>
> OLD
>     This section registers the "MYRIGHTS" option to be added to the
>     registry defined in Section 9 of [RFC5258].
> NEW
>     This section registers the "MYRIGHTS" option to be added to the
>     “LIST-EXTENDED options” registry:
>     <https://www.iana.org/assignments/imap-list-extended#imap-list-extended-1>
> END
>
> — Section 10.2 —
> I find it somewhat odd to have a formal reference to 5819 (implying
> that there’s something in there that the reader might find useful in
> reading this one), when it’s only used in the Acknowledgments.  I
> suggest changing the Acks to just say “RFC 5819” (plain text, not as a
> citation), and removing the informative reference.
>

-- 
Ken Murchison
Cyrus Development Team
FastMail US LLC