Re: [Extra] imap4rev2: RFC6851 MOVE

Michael Slusarz <michael.slusarz@open-xchange.com> Thu, 15 November 2018 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <michael.slusarz@open-xchange.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 55A9C12F1A5 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:13:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=open-xchange.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 d4qej4ISSvJg for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:13:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.open-xchange.com (alcatraz.open-xchange.com [87.191.39.187]) (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 9617B130DDF for <extra@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:13:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from open-xchange.com (imap.open-xchange.com [10.20.30.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx4.open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 814766A356 for <extra@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 17:12:58 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=open-xchange.com; s=201705; t=1542298378; bh=WmPCV8oNHYSg6taHFuM9bbpwujYlbwqgUwr3dZoEXj0=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=lorSwiYzhsz7VlIbcMDpIuQxsATXOjSD8RYy/hwsBBYC9pRkUovSVf0HTowFf2hqb iI+ap3b9NMXgo9/mKvX3mtIDt7PtK3i+YbBUehNaGRo7emqphkwRN+EbFYEqQ/3BA0 gjuxNGqqq2W7EgchrEAJI3vmxhXfGR4rjjzI856UKeXAIPKhjfJQkGCQdQV3NIZhlp UhJNG9l+AyNd4KTCUQTjIJBkoppiKRDFSGJ38A6y0PSuN4zJyPVUpjsaF5v6rtsvnU FhLBCIRFE/qFuzmlF8PfqZwJOlPnz+rtNT8g7WAw3MSW5YTcUOvlmhX2w94H05ySor /2ouUcr7BvlnA==
Received: from appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com (appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com [10.20.28.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by open-xchange.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A24F3C17C9 for <extra@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 17:12:58 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 09:12:58 -0700 (MST)
From: Michael Slusarz <michael.slusarz@open-xchange.com>
To: extra@ietf.org
Message-ID: <776977791.12860.1542298378436@appsuite.open-xchange.com>
In-Reply-To: <+zYCDTO4ZdsjSWin88IbqbIxTnobzOcvIPeIiYbAjBA=.sha-256@antelope.email>
References: <bf58fc05-b4f6-4078-a888-ddda75cce724@sloti7d1t02> <5BE4DB10.6090003@aol.com> <+zYCDTO4ZdsjSWin88IbqbIxTnobzOcvIPeIiYbAjBA=.sha-256@antelope.email>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Medium
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.0-Rev19
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/yLd_Xs1WSIIS2i4xEec6ZzV1ebI>
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 16:13:02 -0000

> 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?

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.)

michael