[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-melnikov-imap-search-res-06.txt

Hi Spencer,
I've updated my copy of the draft, so I am answering the remaining 
comments you've sent:

Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> Abstract
>
>   Many IMAP clients use the result of a SEARCH command as the input to
>   perform another operation, for example fetching the found messages,
>   deleting them or copying them to another mailbox.
>
>   This can be achieved using standard IMAP operations described in RFC
>   3501, however this would be suboptimal: the server will send the list
>   of found messages to the client, after that the client will have to
>   parse the list, reformat it and send it back to the server.  The
>   client can't pipeline the SEARCH command with the subsequent command.
>
> Spencer (readability) - in this paragraph, there are three ways that 
> this extension improves normal operation - for bandwidth (because the 
> list isn't sent in both directions when it doesn't have to be), for 
> processing (since the list isn't parsed and reformatted when it 
> doesn't have to be), and for serialization (since the two commands can 
> now be pipelined). In the body of the document, a fourth improvement 
> is also mentioned ("server optimization"), but isn't described at all. 
> The two lists should be the same, and I wouldn't mind seeing some 
> description of "server optimization" in the body of the document.

Done.

>   This document proposes an IMAP extension that allows a client to tell
>   a server to use the result of a SEARCH (or UID SEARCH) command as an
>   input to any subsequent command.
>
> 2.   Introduction and Overview
>
> Spencer (readability) - This section combines introduction/overview (not
> normative) and protocol operation (normative). I'd suggest separating the
> two. I'd also suggest using some of the abstract text as an actual
> introduction - this section assumes that you've read the abstract, I 
> think,
> and not everyone will automatically do that.

Done.

>   The SEARCH result reference extension defines a new SEARCH result
>   option [IMAPABNF] "SAVE" that tells the server to remember the result
>   of the SEARCH or UID SEARCH command (as well as any command based on
>   SEARCH, e.g. SORT and THREAD [SORT]) and store it in an internal
>   variable that we will reference as the "search result variable". The
>   client can use the "$" marker to reference the content of this
>   internal variable. The "$" marker can be used instead of message (or
>   UID) sequence in order to indicate that the server should substitute
>
> Spencer (nit) - "message" looks like a noun until you get past "(or UID)"
> and discover it's an adjective. Suggest s/message (or UID) 
> sequence/message
> sequence or UID sequence/.

Changed.

>   it with the list of messages from the search result variable.  Thus
>   the client can use the result of the latest remembered SEARCH command
>   as a parameter to another command.  The search result marker has
>   several advantages:
>    * it avoids wasted bandwidth and associated delay;
>    * it allows the client to pipeline a SEARCH [IMAP4] command with a
>      subsequent FETCH/STORE/COPY/SEARCH [IMAP4] or UID EXPUNGE
>   [UIDPLUS] command;
>    * the client doesn't need to spend time reformatting the
>      result of a SEARCH command into a message set used in
>      the subsequent command;
>    * it allows the server to perform optimizations.
>
> Spencer (readability) - in this list, there are FOUR advantages, not 
> three as above... can you give any information about what 
> optimizations a server can perform because this extension is being used?

I've added the following text:

   For example if the server
   can execute several pipelined commands in parallel (or out of order),
   presence of the search result marker can allow the server to decide
   which commands may or may not be executed out of order.

>   In absence of any other SEARCH result option, the SAVE result option
>   also suppresses any SEARCH response that would have been otherwise
>   returned by the SEARCH command.
>
> Spencer (readability) - somewhere around here, the actual protocol
> specification section starts... :-)

I've split the section.
 [...]

>   command with the SAVE result option that caused the server to return
>   NO tagged response sets the value of the search result variable to
>   the empty sequence.
>
>   When a message listed in the search result variable is EXPUNGEd, it
>   is automatically removed from the list.  Implementors are reminded
>   that if the server stores the list as a list of message numbers, it
>   MUST automatically adjust them when notifying the client about
>
> Spencer (readability) - is the meaning of "automatically adjust them"
> obvious to everyone but me? Do you just remove the message number from 
> the
> list, or renumber the list, or ... ?

The latter. This is described in RFC 3501, section 7.4.1. I've added 
this reference to clarify.

>   expunged messages.
>
>   Note that even if the "$" marker contains the empty list of messages,
>   it must be treated by all commands accepting message sets as
>   parameters, as a valid, but non matching list of messages. For
>
> Spencer (readability) - this is correct as written, but hard to parse.
> Perhaps "treated as a valid but non matching list of messages, by all
> commands that accept message sets as parameters"?

I like that. Thanks.

>   example, the "FETCH $" command would return tagged OK response and no
>   FETCH responses.  See also the Example # 5 below.

 [...]

>   2) The following example demonstrates that the result of one SEARCH
>      command can be used to subset the result of another SEARCH
>      command:
>
>   Example 3:
>               C: A300 SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) SINCE 1-Jan-2004
>                   NOT FROM "Smith"
>               S: A300 OK SEARCH completed
>               C: A301 UID SEARCH UID $ SMALLER 4096
>               S: * SEARCH 17 900 901
>               S: A301 OK completed
>
>   Note that the second command in Example 3 can be replaced with:
>               C: A301 UID SEARCH $ SMALLER 4096
>   and the result of the command would be the same.
>
> Spencer (readability) - I didn't quite follow this. I think what 
> confused me
> is the introductory text - isn't this example demonstrating "that the 
> result
> of one SEARCH command can be used as input to a second SEARCH command"?
> "Subset" as written seemed to say that the first result was taking an 
> action
> ("subset"), but it's just input to the second SEARCH...

I've changed the text as you've suggested.

> 2.2.   Multiple Commands in Progress
>
> Spencer (readability) - could you insert a sentence that introduces 
> Example
> 7 and explains what you illustrate in this example? (Is it only what the
> //comment says?) (same for Example 8)
>
>        Example 7:
>                    C: G282 SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) KEYWORD $Junk
>                    C: G283 SEARCH RETURN (ALL) SINCE 28-Oct-2006
>                        FROM "Eric"
>                    //The server can execute the two SEARCH commands
>                    //in any order, as the don't have any dependency.
>
> Spencer (nit) - s/the/they/

Fixed.

>                    //Note that the second command is making use of
>                    //the [ESEARCH] extension.
>                    S: * ESEARCH (TAG "G283") ALL 3:15,27,29:103
>                    S: G283 OK SEARCH completed
>                    S: G282 OK SEARCH completed
>
>        Example 8:
>                    C: H282 SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) KEYWORD $Junk
>                    C: H283 SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) SINCE 28-Oct-2006
>                        FROM "Eric"
>                    //The result of the second SEARCH overrides the
>                    //result of the first.
>                    S: H283 OK SEARCH completed
>                    S: H282 OK SEARCH completed
>
>
> 2.3.   Interaction with ESEARCH extension
>
>        When the SAVE result option is combined with the MIN or MAX
>        [ESEARCH] result option, and none of the other ESEARCH result
>        options are present, the corresponding MIN/MAX is returned (if
>        the search result is not empty) but the "$" marker would contain
>        a single message as returned in the MIN/MAX return item. If the
>        SAVE result option is combined with both MIN and MAX result
>        options, and none of the other ESEARCH result options are
>        present, the "$" marker would contain one or two messages as
>        returned in the MIN/MAX return items.  If the SAVE result option
>        is combined with ALL and/or COUNT result option, the "$" marker
>        would always contain all messages found by the SEARCH or UID
>        SEARCH command.  (Note that the last rule might affect ESEARCH
>        implementations that optimize how COUNT result is constructed.)
>
> Spencer (readability) - is it obvious to everyone except me *how* the 
> last
> rule might affect these implementations?
>
> Spencer (nit) - the previous paragraph is pretty dense. It might be more
> readable as a bulleted list (one bullet per case).

I've split the paragraph into multiples. I hope this is more readable.

>   3.   Formal Syntax
>
> 4.   Security Considerations
>
>   This extension requires the server to keep additional state, that may
>   be used to simplify Deny of Service attacks. In order to minimize
>   damage from such attacks server implementations MAY limit the number
>   of saved searches they allow across all connections at any given time
>   and return the tagged NO response to a SEARCH RETURN (SAVE) command
>   when this limit is exceeded.
>
> Spencer (readability) - I'm guessing there is no way for a client to
> discover this is the reason for the tagged NO response?

I've added a new IMAP response code to allow the server to signal that 
its limit is exceeded.

> but it might be nice
> to say so explicitly. Just curious - is this what an IMAP server would do
> today, when it detects a DoS attack (by an attacker who's just working 
> harder)? If so, it might be nice to point that out, too.
>
> 5.  IANA Considerations
>
>   This document defines the "X-DRAFT-I05-SEARCHRES" <<Fix upon
>   publication>> IMAP capability.  IANA is requested to add it to the
>   IMAP4 Capabilities Registry, which is currently located at:
>
>      http://www.iana.org/assignments/imap4-capabilities
>
> Spencer (nit) - IANA has suggested "search-res" as the permanent name 
> for this capability. You might add it here, just for completeness.

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art