Re: [Extra] AD Review of draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 04 January 2021 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.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 0125F3A0EE1 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 10:11:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 duzOJ9ygAeCW for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 10:11:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-f169.google.com (mail-oi1-f169.google.com [209.85.167.169]) (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 EE6B23A0EDF for <extra@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 10:11:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-f169.google.com with SMTP id l207so33087382oib.4 for <extra@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 10:11:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8WaeXQiPCpoA1Baq5ZGKC3N/6MXiaxIl8B+jbv647ns=; b=HZpuk7LklHBEapMqO3vJyZNeq9E6zpn41FSxh5sAByJa3ZaysPek4sn0rlbfMDuAlU 32Bxq4q4Cs2I2hTodvd4u2bmMnU2KeGUgez/AbH43gI/cALP0XlKB8lADbonhZCR9Xom iTNs+ghCfWYH74aChvLI+hrdAGAoLpAYzp55xyHKJdiZIUyKk2tFuqnCJgazTJZNxlFa ZBsgHUs4vrYKADLhH9cuLsl2faPjKPHrfl7BmtVQZzmLGcc1HvylwdPLN0DI1aJHb1Xc NJfTDcPmgjKQuxqqbqZ8LaC6VE2qkpxq7/57GDMbqzVbCc5DR9UGiqr1lq5RxNaFJvok Lrkg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531qa7pED0G+LAbF5yGfs56E7od7MhMHe16xCQ0y7guX2IkO0vPY 9wjg/yZwqo3GppvhwlhxqPFyVvw5SVQe0xxlvtk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzov++ypDSnGoGqiDiuqTSMNCjvzvGXvhTE3osfVXwE4/NFrp8FuL2lo6iHzdhqaRqEMPmtFfrtfw6pvyGxhH0=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:3145:: with SMTP id x66mr94531oix.29.1609783871121; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 10:11:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwaLa+PuGWRrKTbpmDa_SWKT9ZQUEQ9dsPgXfUmTzcYAYw@mail.gmail.com> <bb662e64-626c-914b-de59-f85ef18ee5e3@isode.com> <CAL0qLwYXht2r_83PCZo6+tJUJAoYCd0EoGyCHm6BQEQ=YhWT-A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYXht2r_83PCZo6+tJUJAoYCd0EoGyCHm6BQEQ=YhWT-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 13:11:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVDfkid_-r=ug7gUDhXYZuS3giwiMgWXTzc8w97-gLho_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, extra@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/yW4meaqTkdyZwP8BK3N25qTN1FY>
Subject: Re: [Extra] AD Review of draft-ietf-extra-imap4rev2
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: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 18:11:13 -0000

>>> Section 2.2.1
>>>
>>>   Clients MUST follow the syntax outlined in this specification
>>>    strictly.  It is a syntax error to send a command with missing or
>>>    extraneous spaces or arguments.
>>>
>>> It seems unnecessary to say this in a standards track document.  There’s a similar paragraph in Section 2.2.2.
>>
>> I think the text is there due to various bugs in implementations, so I would rather keep it as is.
>
> I would use "need to" instead of "MUST" here.  It's otherwise a bit hand-wavy for use of BCP 14 language.

Over the years, we have seen a LOT of implementations that mess this
up, thinking that because IMAP command streams are "readable", they
can add spaces to "improve readability", and then they complain that
things break.  Because of that, I think it's important to have this
text, and I think it's important to use BCP 14 language (it's a *real*
interoperability issue).  I feel pretty strongly about this, as
someone who's many times had to help people fix their implementations
because they weren't warned explicitly about it.

Barry