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

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

On 4/2/13 4:54 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> I am sorry if I sound pedantic below, but I think your suggestion can 
> be misinterpreted and thus needs improving:
>
> On 28/03/2013 12:13, Burger Eric wrote:
>> Rather than guessing all of the bad things that could happen, I would 
>> offer it would be better to say what we mean, like:
>>     The IMAP interface MUST NOT provide any IMAP facilities that 
>> modify the underlying message and message metadata, such as mailbox, 
>> flags, marking for deletion, etc. If the client is authenticated and 
>> authorized, the IMAP interface MUST provide per-user marking of the 
>> underlying message as read or flagged.
> One way to implement this is in an IMAP server is to always fail 
> commands for modifying message metadata. Another way of implementing 
> this is to allow them, but ignore (don't persist) results. Both ways 
> were used in the past and they have different effect on IMAP clients. 
> I hope the requirement is intended to allow for either.
>
> Another thing to consider is that for IMAP servers that implement IMAP 
> ACL, the easiest way to meet the intended requirement is by not 
> allowing unauthorized users to access some commands on a mailbox. 
> Again, a possible reading of your suggested text is that that is not 
> allowed.
>
> So, my suggestion is to change "MUST NOT provide any IMAP facilities 
> ..." to "MUST disallow any IMAP facilities ...".
I think I found a way to say this that strikes a good balance in -06. 
Let me know what you think.