Re: [Extra] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-extra-specialuse-important-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 07 June 2018 07:01 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 AA55A130E7E; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 00:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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 n1I3io44qc0M; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 00:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF611130E87; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 00:01:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w5771Da8030126 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Jun 2018 02:01:14 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-extra-specialuse-important@ietf.org, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, extra-chairs@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org
References: <152833758875.6300.13983676302738633190.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALaySJKicughb4QAMxoic2kx0nQ8yTaFAdpQLRR4nMvo5WREmg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <a43ee140-fdd8-ead6-4c65-241a353d2921@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 02:01:08 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJKicughb4QAMxoic2kx0nQ8yTaFAdpQLRR4nMvo5WREmg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/trjItmCyovz24PC7GMPPedJz4m8>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-extra-specialuse-important-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 07 Jun 2018 07:01:24 -0000
On 6/7/18 1:54 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Thanks for the review, Adam. > >> Thanks for the work everyone has done on this document. I have a concern about >> an ambiguity that can potentially lead to interop issues between clients and >> servers that make different assumptions around \Important mailbox ordinality. > It took me a bit to understand that you mean "cardinality". Ugh. Sorry, brain handed me the wrong word. > >> The second example in section 3.2.2 and the use of the singular form "mailbox" >> in this passage from section 5 imply that only one mailbox is allowed to be >> tagged "\Important": > ... >> However, I find no normative text that indicates whether this is expected to be >> inherent to the mechanism, or whether servers can exercise discretion about >> allowing more than one mailbox to be tagged \Important. > Look at RFC 6154 Section 2, and note the similar language throughout, > then the penultimate paragraph: > > In most cases, there will likely be at most one mailbox with > a given attribute for a given user, but in some server or message > store implementations it might be possible for multiple mailboxes to > have the same special-use attribute. > > That's intentional, and is as far as we want to go with it. I don't > think we want to nor should say anything further in this document. I did go looking for text that said something to this effect in the general sense, but didn't locate this. If you're comfortable that IMAP implementations will generally be aware of this, then the situation seems to be okay. I'll clear my DISCUSS. /a