Re: [Extra] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap-fetch-preview-03: (with COMMENT)

"Alexey Melnikov" <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Wed, 10 April 2019 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
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 AB55F120372; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 05:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b=JaCwCc95; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=qwH48+2p
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 WCE9NM6SsSJu; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 05:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EAA2120072; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 05:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447C121F83; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 08:52:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap1 ([10.202.2.51]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 10 Apr 2019 08:52:47 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to:cc :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm2; bh=2Ow/n N4aXQJINTeKWsBb6S8DxoVCjPI92aKcEniN/iM=; b=JaCwCc95e+GGvWHp8JlM2 xtasopOAJGmNWiOthDVo5tRtbNoqsJZkHWe9PjPMBB1s0+Qs7cEj3P/rG4o/LFrk 608asoClvGx0aIH+dZSSzFjZCY4BGkeoIvSZyvte/2n4cA5N2m6uLDcaw6+OZoce KorAp/oT/73XGDHP+lv6drNCVf6aub6t8MT2V6lAiVrZsaf5Q8QZP8XRrAoNLTuI 4KDjn1sAPOUg/dhLl3zMkJc+hIPzfPicO1aWUqRQefE7fGUL71on6tAFlE90RchR mPa6RnwQ7Egw+2/X2/3I2HDHMnUxy/MDhqW/jbn5kfYFO/5Nq3fq3cebFLD9cgru Q==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=2Ow/nN4aXQJINTeKWsBb6S8DxoVCjPI92aKcEniN/ iM=; b=qwH48+2pf4wkwgHOthBMfrKDV15y0MYTlFe0y5wwTwzz6r3fKsOrTp3K+ aO5wLVE3gPUawwg+p9xA97wlIj3dG/CssQVWpVRjGiHu3bT1EfsJdHICkBtz/C19 ff/pGSRs/vDq4TSmPCr9G0MMvqLAqhJlC7CHWKlmcvIiNzLcJa1casUlkrTjmOrz 6A208GE8/KOC+En5qjVSwSoDkhuLvbRid2vC/QlX38FM7OrB331M0JM6+OM2aAa7 X9qgkU2hRE4nVUBVMgW16GfsEkWZ5sGhkXrTnIWqs+BIKJu4C1Z1pMy0mcYugEdi Y/OdfNL8k8H2m2j+Voti8INZE5/lg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:HuetXAkSMdnOZaN3QAXhJbYxKoQhh33elX0Y816Tz3RsOkQomzEWkQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrudejgdehkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtgfesthhqredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdetlhgv gigvhicuofgvlhhnihhkohhvfdcuoegrrghmvghlnhhikhhovhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrd hfmheqnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrrghmvghlnhhikhhovhesfhgrshht mhgrihhlrdhfmhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:HuetXEG5iZ_RAiA_QhkScno08DUNDkB35_DlnrtIq5pAWv68bwu5LA> <xmx:HuetXJozq5G8hNPUPtgbM6Oc16wx_Kp83Mh3pFQUKVQT4-H0pbYW6g> <xmx:HuetXA5eOAPNbKy3oQkZH6rFM8KrP08Eg0YDVtIecuDtfMm8vlGH3g> <xmx:H-etXO13FOYQsCZmtNOVF8lvZiJD516AYEsHsl5t3QbUrIM7AoTdxQ>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 84D9DD48AB; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 08:52:46 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.6-329-gf4aae99-fmstable-20190329v1
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Me-Personality: 21611513
Message-Id: <c2b0278d-7929-4d2c-a60f-92cc9ab70477@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <155475588989.30030.14071614051532431093.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <155475588989.30030.14071614051532431093.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 08:52:31 -0400
From: "Alexey Melnikov" <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: "Adam Roach" <adam@nostrum.com>, "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: extra@ietf.org, "Bron Gondwana" <brong@fastmailteam.com>, extra-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-extra-imap-fetch-preview@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/fLoW72cm991KQ9lGdK49GlQFfSY>
Subject: Re: [Extra] =?utf-8?q?Adam_Roach=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf-extr?= =?utf-8?q?a-imap-fetch-preview-03=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 12:52:51 -0000

Hi Adam,
Thank you for your comments:

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019, at 9:38 PM, Adam Roach via Datatracker wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks to everyone who has worked on this document. I have a handful of comments
> that should be considered prior to publication.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §3.1:
> 
> >  These algorithms MUST be one
> >  of the algorithms identified as supported in the PREVIEW capability
> >  responses.
> 
> This is confusing, as "algorithms" and "one of" don't make sense with each
> other. Is it meant to say something like "...MUST be a subset of the
> algorithms..."?
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §3.1:
> 
> >  If a client requests an algorithm that is unsupported,
> >  the server MUST return a tagged BAD response.
> 
> This appear to be underspecified, or at least nonintuitive. As written,
> it seems to say that an algorithm list of (known-1, known-2, unknown, known-3)
> would be considered invalid, even though there are plenty of supported,
> requested algorithms that could be used. Is this actually intended to be an
> error? If so, please make it explicit, as it's pretty counterintuitive.
> 
> (As an aside: it's also unnecessarily fragile from an interop perspective, so I
> would suggest that this is not the desired behavior: I believe you want to
> return an error only when *none* of the requested algorithms are supported).

I think this section is a mess. If we want to allow for multiple algorithms here, then, as you point out, handling of error cases need to be described. This will be fixed.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §6, example 5:
> 
> >    C: E1 CAPABILITY
> >    S: * CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 PREVIEW=FUZZY SEARCHRES
> >    S: E1 OK Capability command completed.
> >    [...a mailbox is SELECTed...]
> >    C: E2 SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) FROM "FOO"
> >    C: E3 FETCH $ (UID PREVIEW (LAZY=FUZZY))
> 
> This example shows the use of a modifier ("LAZY") with an algorithm; however,
> this modifier doesn't appear to be advertised by the server in its CAPABILITY
> line. If I understand how this is supposed to work (looking at the definitions
> in section 7), I would have expected:
> 
>      S: * CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 PREVIEW=FUZZY PREVIEW=LAZY SEARCHRES
> 
> I'll note that this syntax effectively places algorithms and modifiers in the
> same namespace, although IANA doesn't seem to be given any explicit
> instructions about this. 

Right, Barry has DISCUSS on this point.

> I think this needs to be cleaned up prior to
> publication.  I would make this last point a DISCUSS, except that it appears
> to be covered by Benjamin's DISCUSS already.