Re: [imapext] AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06 (Section 2)

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 10 December 2015 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8795C1A1B7B; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:35:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 T1toc4NIXXEH; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:35:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676581A1A86; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:35:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.226.210.92]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBAKYus4012279 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:35:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1449779711; x=1449866111; bh=trilo+T0dTm/gYoohZeljI7B5JlEHzv0KHe071TUIKo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=YgU88ddaOCK8bASNsm6n59OadtmzNlIzxTIZpajGK+9r3VH0VQfzKm0XjLKaNmy6M 1s7z0u2cBHcU/7qNtDveZB2ovgvH650iaERF6qfaMeDkHkmNsk5P8TWQO4knTqzObd /QXQM+n2v+kJhNnUEMBHOM0m1gkTTmDhSWPTMsY4=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1449779711; x=1449866111; i=@elandsys.com; bh=trilo+T0dTm/gYoohZeljI7B5JlEHzv0KHe071TUIKo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=awZ+eaCPBxEEGDFUk0FnjEfAmmNX+YBlSwrnWHpUt25d805KEnh7Ab8xfaj0p4lvx g6gio6ymviLOW2fDC4ui08kzhYk8oDMU+ZpuvsrpeAC7XK0Lxc1b8uUbnYtrVLOSiC H4daDyoh3ZC2Z03veGRLffjwcGW3YF33X84RFm7o=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20151210122047.1044fe90@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:34:45 -0800
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Naren <narendrasingh.bisht@gmail.com>, imapext@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <5669B439.9010807@isode.com>
References: <CALaySJLE_6+vbeB-SeMk1VHDAtq2VvS9yKe9dhQ2LTzr4y=oTg@mail.gmail.com> <DEA84B8F15992B4EA87D5CF3D0EC5F98AE4FCFD8@DRTW-EXMB04.telecom.sna.samsung.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151209223348.0d1a66e0@resistor.net> <CAHC+rVHPmcpLKogQdFrCo+P-GaALoWLLGEw=MeA7hnarQhEYLw@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151210080422.10a00dc0@elandnews.com> <5669B439.9010807@isode.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imapext/8VpKbGfM6hzdzQZ-voy33GuL3rI>
Cc: Narendra Bisht <ns.bisht@sta.samsung.com>, draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension@ietf.org, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: [imapext] AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06 (Section 2)
X-BeenThere: imapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IMAP extensions <imapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/imapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:imapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext>, <mailto:imapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 20:35:25 -0000

Hi Alexey, Naren,
At 09:19 10-12-2015, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>The it means that the limit applies to all users. However the server 
>can also return another limit for some users after logging in, which 
>will override the globally announced limit. So it is not OR, but AND/OR.

This is from Section 2:

   C: t1 CAPABILITY
   S: * CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 ID APPENDLIMIT=257890
   S: t1 OK foo

The explanation (above that text in the draft) says that 257890 is 
for all mailboxes.  In Section 3 there is the following:

   "IMAP server can have mailbox specific APPENDLIMIT value, which
    will not be advertised as part of CAPABILITY response."

Won't the IMAP client assume that the IMAP server would not have 
advertised "257890" as the limit if there is a mailbox specific 
APPENDLIMIT value?

Regards,
S. Moonsamy (as document shepherd)