Re: [Extra] IMAP4rev2: how to signal canonical mailbox name after CREATE

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 07/07/2020 00:30, Bron Gondwana wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, at 03:38, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>
>> On 17/06/2020 13:27, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020, at 22:15, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) abandon use of this response code (and use a new response 
>>>>> instead), e.g.
>>>>>
>>>>> * CREATED "a123" "Denormalized name" MAILBOXID "123456"
>>>>>
>>>>>  This would require clients to ignore an extra response, if they 
>>>>> don't recognize it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Somehow I've a feeling that there are going to be clients that will 
>>>> break if they see these kind of unknown untagged replies. But 
>>>> that's just a guess, so maybe not. We could of course send it only 
>>>> when client has used ENABLE IMAP4REV2 and then there wouldn't be 
>>>> any problems.
>>>
>>> I like this.  Only send if IMAP4REV2 is enabled and all[tm] your 
>>> problems go away.
>>
>> Following on the suggestion to use LIST extended data items for this
>>
>>
>>       C: C04 create NonCannonicalName
>>       S: * LIST () "/" "CannonicalName" ("TAG" ("C04"))
>>       S: C04 OK done
>>
>>
>> In the example above imagine that "CannonicalName" is the canonical 
>> (normalized) version of "NonCannonicalName"
>>
>>
>> And the corresponding ABNF:
>>
>> tag-extended-item = "TAG" SP "(" tag-string ")"
>>    ; Complies with <mbox-list-extended-item>
>>    ; The value complies with <tagged-ext-val>
>>    ; The value is the tag of the corresponding
>>    ; CREATE command.
>>
>>
>> And a similar extended data item can be used to return MAILBOXID 
>> (when supported).
>>
>
> Yes, this works for me.

After thinking a bit more about this, I remembered that we already 
registered OLDNAME extended data item in Section 5.4 of RFC 5465. (We 
can think of canonical mailbox name as the server "renaming" the mailbox.)

Matching to oldname is easier than matching to the tag of the command 
that generated the change.


So unless there are objections, I would go with that instead.