IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Extra] Some comments on draft-ietf-extra-imap-64bit

Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> Sat, 16 September 2017 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
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 8F2CF1321A1 for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 08:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 uzDTNrKklKDW for <extra@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 08:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orthanc.ca (orthanc.ca [IPv6:2607:f2f8:abf8::2]) (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 8D0421201F8 for <extra@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Sep 2017 08:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from minnie.hitronhub.home (S0106a84e3f81a003.vc.shawcable.net [24.80.126.119]) (authenticated bits=0) by orthanc.ca (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v8GFpsJh043345 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 16 Sep 2017 08:51:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lyndon@orthanc.ca)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
In-Reply-To: <95F5ABD0-EB0F-4B41-89EE-6DD438B2061E@isode.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 08:51:49 -0700
Cc: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmailteam.com>, extra@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2440791C-5A21-4853-9A6F-6110FDE10853@orthanc.ca>
References: <0871fcf6-f0c5-a4b7-f1e4-7a535d78d776@rename-it.nl> <DA5AEDAF-E697-4116-856C-AED989301055@att.com> <1505574916.3734961.1108226832.6279CACB@webmail.messagingengine.com> <95F5ABD0-EB0F-4B41-89EE-6DD438B2061E@isode.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/zM11OpxA_go7MqSOVv2V36D0It8>
Subject: Re: [Extra] Some comments on draft-ietf-extra-imap-64bit
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 15:51:59 -0000

> On Sep 16, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
> 
>> Yeah, round tripping via a signed 64 bit value is nice.
> 
> Basically for compatibility with Java.

From a practical standpoint, nobody is going to miss that extra bit if sizes are restricted to 2^63 (vs ^64)

From a purists point of view, using a signed int to represent something that cannot possibly be negative is wrong.  Back in the days of the IMAP interop events, throwing protocol elements with sizes of 2^32 ±1 and +0 was guaranteed to take out at least half the server implementations on the floor.

--lyndon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email