Re: [Extra] imap4rev2: RFC6851 MOVE

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 15 November 2018 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
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 65308130DE0 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:15:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.com
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 kbpr3aPEe4wp for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:15:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from statler.isode.com (Statler.isode.com [62.232.206.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB1A130DDF for <extra@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:15:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1542298542; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=vR0TnDTEnD1PfUZBIjcpcfp2fsFn6IhhLhC8Pe6c5FU=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=HIHNK/U9Q4Z5SXM8LscRVCINorBRcSU/fZhr6oeIu0lhR5dR1zw4/wP/8XZ3PvuVy9Kt74 Rjj3UAfpquo2+4xsDwKM7bHRsnFkkP9RLvxX0C+ntLfkoSDms3dRsXE9DxebEcFZsbK/sD 4TI/v+TPsR7UXtCz9513frmVnkDf40I=;
Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <W-2brQAu0ox8@statler.isode.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:15:41 +0000
To: Michael Slusarz <michael.slusarz@open-xchange.com>, extra@ietf.org
References: <bf58fc05-b4f6-4078-a888-ddda75cce724@sloti7d1t02> <5BE4DB10.6090003@aol.com> <+zYCDTO4ZdsjSWin88IbqbIxTnobzOcvIPeIiYbAjBA=.sha-256@antelope.email> <776977791.12860.1542298378436@appsuite.open-xchange.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <1496a607-4bf1-3e37-af9a-6e7ede6a4923@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:15:18 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0
In-Reply-To: <776977791.12860.1542298378436@appsuite.open-xchange.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/sKN2NvXW2jJebKFHOVwgyHVOkTI>
Subject: Re: [Extra] imap4rev2: RFC6851 MOVE
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: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:15:44 -0000

Hi Michael,

On 15/11/2018 16:12, Michael Slusarz wrote:
>> On November 15, 2018 at 6:52 AM Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>; wrote:
>>
>> Move had 10-15 implementations soon after being published as RFC, and
>> judging by my inbox, people did not have problems implementing it. And:
>> it was regularly requested before that time.
>>
>> So... what are the
>> criteria for inclusion, and how can something like move not pass the
>> test?
> Playing devil's advocate... what were the reason(s) this wasn't part of previous specs?
The short answer is a) Mark disliked MOVE and b) MOVE spec wasn't 
written yet.
> Was it simply due to the belief that we already have the necessary plumbing to do this (COPY/STORE/EXPUNGE), so MOVE was nothing more than a "shortcut", and shortcuts should be left out lest the base spec get too bloated?
>
> (MOVE atomicity guarantees trump this logic, in my opinion. Seems many others share this view.)