Re: [Extra] Review: draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2-11

[Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020, at 20:33, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi Bron,

> On 08/07/2020 13:58, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>> I have reviewed all the changes from -12 to -15 and am still mostly happy :) I haven't reviewed -15 in full because it's a big job!
>> 
>> Regarding the changes in -13, I have a couple of small things:
>> 
>> *Regarding unsolicited fetch:***
>> 
>> If the server chooses to send unsolicited FETCH responses, they MUST include UID FETCH item. Note that this is a new requirement when compared to RFC 3501.
>> 
>> This could do with a clarification that this only applies after "ENABLED IMAP4REV2".
> Actually, in this one case: I don't think so. It shouldn't break any old (IMAP4rev1 only) clients to return this.


I don't even remember which client it bothered, but I remember one of them didn't like it.

Maybe it just didn't like it if you added UID to explicit FETCH when you didn't ask for it, not sure.

> But this made me think: Maybe the document needs a new section that list everything that the server should do after ENABLED IMAP4rev2?

>> *Regarding SELECT allowing non-canonical names:***
>> 
>> We've already discussed the list response to CREATE. Should SELECT also return the canonical representation of the mailbox name as part of the reply?
> This will be again returning an untagged LIST response on SELECT.

> I will add it to my to do list.


Yeah, that makes sense.

Cheers,

Bron.

--
 Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
 [e-mail]