Re: Missing requirement in draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch? (was Re: New Version Notification - draft-sparks-genarea-imaparch-05.txt)

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 26/06/2013 16:18, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 4/1/13 4:41 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> On 3/28/13 1:17 PM, SM wrote:
>>> At 05:13 28-03-2013, Burger Eric wrote:
>>>> I use the IMAP interface once, mark a bunch of things as read, and 
>>>> then decide never to use the IMAP interface ever again. How long 
>>>> does the server need to keep my (per-user) marking metadata? E.g., 
>>>> besides CPU and I/O issues, there is a potentially unbounded 
>>>> storage problem as well. It is unbounded because in IMAP I can 
>>>> assign any kind of label (marking) to a message, even ones I make up.
>>>>
>>>> One thought for an approach to a solution:
>>>> 1. per-user markings expire after X time units (six months?)
>>>> 2. per-user markings may take up at most X storage units (512KB?)
>>>
>>> I would go for both.
>>
>> Instead, I propose that we make it possible to notice an abuser and 
>> turn off access (this is what -06 will contain).
>>
>> I don't believe we could come to a consensus on an automatic expiry 
>> of state - there are use cases I can think of where any short
>> expiration (like 6-months) would be infuriating.
>>
>> If keeping this state for normal use turns out to be too expensive 
>> for us, then we will have learned something, and can start talking 
>> about future IMAP work in general to help systems mitigate that expense.
>
> During my IESG Evaluation review of the document, I noticed the 
> resultant paragraph for this. I don't know how I missed it before. 
> Here is what I said in my ballot:
>
> ---
>
>    o  It must be possible for administrators, on a per-user basis, to
>       disable setting read/unread marks and other annotations and to
>       delete any such marks or annotations.
>
> I don't think that's the appropriate requirement. A perfectly 
> reasonable way to address the issue of annotations taking up too much 
> space is to use per-user storage quotas. I would prefer not to give 
> administrators the ability or the need to decide which users get to 
> use annotations and which users' annotations they get to delete. And I 
> can imagine servers for which implementing this requirement would be a 
> significant pain. Quotas solve the problem in a much more general way.

Yes, this requirement is a bit of a pain. Quotas would make it easier 
for my implementation.

> ---
>
> I wanted to post here to make sure that folks who were involved in the 
> earlier discussion saw what I was suggesting and had a chance to 
> object if they thought I was full of crap.