Re: [Extra] Call for opinions: decision about what to do with 64bit

[Sean Leonard <[e-mail]>]

> On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:56 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Bron Gondwana writes:
>> So I'm calling here to see if there's any objections to parking, with a side note that anyone objecting to parking needs to convince people to work on it, and we're pretty busy right now!
> 
> IMO, larger message sizes are either important enough to include in imap4rev2 or unimportant enough to ignore altogether. Extensions are harmful by default, and need justification for their very existence. I don't bother to argue the point.

With these brief alternatives outlined, I am in favor of including it in IMAP4rev2. Storage needs are only increasing over time, not decreasing. Looking at the evolution of hard drive/SSD interfaces, for example, one can see numerous points in the industry where someone increased the bit width, only to find another barrier at the next generation. Nobody is going to go beyond 64-bit and it is the next step up by 32 orders of binary magnitude, so let’s just do it as a CAPABILITY in IMAP4rev2.

I also would like to suggest updating the ABNF in draft-ietf-extra-imap-64bit from:
  number64    = 1*DIGIT

to:

  number64    = 1*19DIGIT

as that would help with abnfgen and other tools not to go hog wild with the numbers. (Writing the ABNF to limit to exactly 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 is possible, but not so practical.)

Sean