Re: [Gen-art] [Extra] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-list-myrights-05

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 17 May 2018 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7893120713; Thu, 17 May 2018 06:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.423
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 cU5Yb_ql_o2G; Thu, 17 May 2018 06:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-f176.google.com (mail-qt0-f176.google.com [209.85.216.176]) (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 65D6912D86F; Thu, 17 May 2018 06:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-f176.google.com with SMTP id m16-v6so5744027qtg.13; Thu, 17 May 2018 06:42:39 -0700 (PDT)
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; bh=7cUQ3mwLnAbzGtkp1MP+Nq2rZyvA71/DGY0x92u9r6M=; b=oeSWZ3gHfh9StTa1b9n1Tq85jrkMJ0TK/XirD6L/dblSUrpvkHsWRO0ymYDIqUFdm6 9qG4dGISyfxH3b1Zp3DAF/+bCz1t3hZ0HyJ5YvFpH2iJqJmkNIwsaEWQa+XrK0uV4mj+ hqDEgnZyF6+XLMPJcVd3Zq8TEAO/NugacvS0ITUQaMSq2vJB2K7j9ntZI+SdupHhNCO7 f7yk4phA4nxgUSWnI1taJ4lAxpSwPULTl7QEEOwa1fLgFY5YWJME5ob2ejPlRFwdCfEu JR93QzLX4f0UiCQnwh4Hc3UcAjNS1hf9r79jXdgyS32AVXT6aYdEyo/g5od0S64LePD+ C7Ug==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwdrDgc02rxZn4FPjDtVmhgAj5YDUok2omVi3spNZ3avBUl8K9KP CcSCjJL+LlUkIx4X8yRWzcfiQ2bPRkFK/T1gzRs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZoAux4PfrXdZIm/uZXy469vpNKQiYr2tHkWWGRvbh09K79vFfxgkDu4zXjEaIMWRehBZXRtIraVmDIIZMOmhfk=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:bed1:: with SMTP id f17-v6mr5063243qvj.18.1526564558271; Thu, 17 May 2018 06:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <152563640684.26784.16524702453597873690@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <152563640684.26784.16524702453597873690@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 14:42:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVC3Xh_k8EAwuDK7JWy=rRZb9DEttr=RFskZg1CBidHyRw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dale Worley <worley@ariadne.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-extra-imap-list-myrights.all@ietf.org, extra@ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000038fc21056c6702a7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/0N2CbhVjuBYbm4JD9H6JyRLU4vY>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Extra] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-extra-imap-list-myrights-05
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 13:42:41 -0000

> 3.  MYRIGHTS Return Option to LIST Command

>

>    The ordering of the responses is significant only in that

>    the server MUST NOT send a MYRIGHTS response for a given mailbox

>    before it sends the LIST response for that mailbox.

>

> It's clear what this means, but I think the wording is not quite

> correct.


I don’t understand why you think it’s wrong as it is.  I think it’s fine
(well, it’s my text, actually, so of course I do) and don’t see the
problem.  While your suggestions are also OK, I don’t think any is better.


> (In regard to the substance of this constraint, it's not clear to me

> why it exists, but I assume that the authors know of a reason for it.)


The reason is that the client will be building a data structure of
mailboxes, and it’s possible that clients won’t be able to handle a
MYRIGHTS response when they have not built the mailbox entry from the
corresponding LIST response.  Another way to handle this would be to say
that clients MUST be able to do that, it’s very unlikely that a server
implementation would want to send them in the other order anyway, so it’s
easier to set the restriction there.

Barry