Re: [Extra] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace-02: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 25 October 2018 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 5102B130DFC; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <H0fDQ_oLg29n>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char 9C hex): Received: ...s kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)\n\t\234by outgoing.mit[...]
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 H0fDQ_oLg29n; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu [18.7.68.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 509211277D2; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 12074422-b8dff7000000039d-96-5bd201457ec3
Received: from mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.43]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-5.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 7A.49.00925.54102DB5; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:45:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.9.2) with ESMTP id w9PHjdil012381; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:45:39 -0400
Received: from kduck.kaduk.org (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) œby outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id w9PHjYTK031677 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:45:36 -0400
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 12:45:34 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Stuart Brandt <stujenerin@aol.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace@ietf.org, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20181025174533.GD45914@kduck.kaduk.org>
References: <154032941464.31269.3192588777781367014.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5BCFD689.3040004@aol.com> <20181024022358.GQ45914@kduck.kaduk.org> <5BCFE35D.5020703@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5BCFE35D.5020703@aol.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmphleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IR4hTV1nVjvBRtsGO7qMWfM/NZLR7tWclm MWtlG5PF/6s9zBYz/kxktuh6Ge7A5nF/90p2j8vfW5k8liz5yRTAHMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CV sWT9dpaCl2IVr4++YmtgXC3UxcjJISFgIvF17i3mLkYuDiGBNUwSf65dYodwNjJKTJj2GCpz l0ni9uRrzCAtLAKqEv+Wz2IFsdkEVCQaui+DxUUE1CS+3poL1s0ssJRRYsOURnaQhLBAgkR/ 0zEwmxdo38xHC5lAbCGBTYwS/x/xQcQFJU7OfMICYjMLaEnc+PcSqIYDyJaWWP6PAyTMKaAu 0bsEolVUQFlib98h9gmMArOQdM9C0j0LoXsBI/MqRtmU3Crd3MTMnOLUZN3i5MS8vNQiXVO9 3MwSvdSU0k2MoMBmd1HawTjxn9chRgEORiUe3gnfLkYLsSaWFVfmHmKU5GBSEuVNTAEK8SXl p1RmJBZnxBeV5qQWH2KU4GBWEuHdexsox5uSWFmVWpQPk5LmYFES553YsjhaSCA9sSQ1OzW1 ILUIJivDwaEkwavFcClaSLAoNT21Ii0zpwQhzcTBCTKcB2j4vv8gw4sLEnOLM9Mh8qcYFaXE eSNBmgVAEhmleXC9oMQjkb2/5hWjONArwrxsIFU8wKQF1/0KaDAT0OAZChdABpckIqSkGhiF 554Lee5X6b56f77C0W+Pz8Tucn0YN2dLx/OXtltuHK39oSatqupoqJratUX+xbp7WmlHpdYf 3f7Yep+Q35dFB/UaFrUE3edx79zNs2LqfkGmn10Vmdddj3G/Ut8140Be3zq1nwdnBWxdzyEf dyCZq+iL5s8lTh6Sxz4G+alcC3m57NzD1bsuKbEUZyQaajEXFScCAP+UoL8XAwAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/tjfKCuOQyh4sUOzmGExJE97tdjY>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace-02: (with COMMENT)
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, 25 Oct 2018 17:45:47 -0000

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:13:33PM -0400, Stuart Brandt wrote:
> On 10/23/2018 10:23 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:18:49PM -0400, Stuart Brandt wrote:
> >> Thanks for the feedback. Comments inline.
> >>
> >> On 10/23/2018 5:16 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> >>> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> >>> draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace-02: No Objection
> >>>
> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> >>> introductory paragraph, however.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> COMMENT:
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Section 1
> >>>
> >>> (RFC 8174 provides an updated version of the BCP 14 boilerplate that can be
> >>> used instead of the RFC 2119 boilerplate.)
> >>>
> >>> Section 3.5
> >>>
> >>>      Unlike the APPEND command which is valid in the authenticated state,
> >>>      the REPLACE and UID REPLACE commands MUST only be valid in the
> >>>      selected state.  This difference from APPEND is necessary since
> >>>      REPLACE operates on message sequence numbers.
> >>>
> >>> The stated justification applies only to REPLACE.  What is the
> >>> justification for disallowing UID REPLACE from the authenticated state?
> >>
> >> The syntax of REPLACE identifies the source message's Mailbox by means
> >> of the currently selected Mailbox, thus requiring Selected state.
> >>
> >> An optional source-mailbox parameter could be added to the syntax just
> >> for the UID REPLACE case, but other UID command variants such as those
> >> discussed in RFC3501 section 6.4.8 chose not to introduce UID specific
> >> syntax for specifying source-mailbox in order to support actions from
> >> Authenticated state alone. I'd prefer not to forge new ground in that
> >> area with this particular specification.
> >
> > I probably should have made it clear: I also prefer to not forge such new
> > ground in this specification.  But does it make sense to make a nod to this
> > reality in the document and note that this restriction is also applied to
> > UID REPLACE for consistency?
> 
> Makes sense. Would the nod be more helpful when discussing state impacts 
> (section 3.5) or when discussing UID REPLACE syntax (section 3.3)?

It feels more natural to me in Section 3.5, but I have no claim to be an
authority in this matter :)

Thanks,

Benjamin