Re: [Extra] I-D Action: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-01.txt

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> I believe that's an incorrect interpretation of the spec. RFC 6154
> states:

>     ...  If the client specifies the "SPECIAL-USE" selection option,
>     the LIST command MUST return only those mailboxes that have a
>     special-use attribute set.  If the client specifies the
> "SPECIAL-USE"
>     return option, the LIST command MUST return the new special-use
>     attributes on those mailboxes that have them set. ...

See the beginning of the paragraph you neglected to quote. It's quite clear
that  this is in the context of LIST-EXTENDED, not unextended LIST. This is
reiterated in the ABNF.

> This spec applies to all servers that advertise SPECIAL-USE. Those two
> MUST clauses do not have an exception for servers that do not advertise
> LIST-EXTENDED. The example in section 5.2 supports this interpretation,
> since it does not include LIST-EXTENDED in the capabilities response.

So what you're saying is that despite the fact that the section in question is
specifically about using extended list - unextended list is covered in section
5.1 - the lack of the list-extended list in the example capabilities is
sufficient reason to believe that the presence of the special-use cability
magically enables the RETURN clause component of the special use extension and
nothing else?

If this is indeed how this is supposed to be interpreted it needs to be
clarified with an errata, because your reading is frankly pretty tortuous.

				Ned