IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [imapext] Proposal for a new IMAP Working Group to revise CONDSTORE & QRESYNC

Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi> Tue, 05 March 2013 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <tss@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809D011E8109 for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 11:01:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nZy0+LXas6O3 for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 11:01:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dovecot.org (dovecot.org [193.210.130.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D83611E80E9 for <imapext@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 11:01:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.57.31.11] (gprs-internet-bceea0-11.dhcp.inet.fi [188.238.160.11]) by dovecot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F91A1AE837A; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 21:01:53 +0200 (EET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <513607D5.4090808@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 21:01:53 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <211A410D-C67D-4FF6-AACB-4007F75F7148@iki.fi>
References: <513607D5.4090808@isode.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "imapext@ietf.org" <imapext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [imapext] Proposal for a new IMAP Working Group to revise CONDSTORE & QRESYNC
X-BeenThere: imapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:01:58 -0000

On 5.3.2013, at 16.57, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:

> I've noticed some surge in activity related to implementing CONDSTORE (RFC 4551)/QRESYNC (RFC 5162) in both clients and servers, so I drafted a new WG charter proposal to update/clarify these:
..
> So please comment on whether you think this work is worth doing and on the proposed charter text.

Can we keep it on this mailing list? I've too many mailing lists already. :)

> I've also posted a new version of RFC 5162bis (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-melnikov-5162bis-01), which addressed most (but not all) of existing errata on the document. If a new WG is to be formed, I propose that the document is used as one of the initial documents.

Sounds like a good idea. I didn't read it yet, but some QRESYNC/CONDSTORE things that come to my mind:

 - command length limits as discussed by Michael
 - don't allow server to send VANISHED duplicates
 - algorithm how server uses the seq/uid mapping could be better to reduce how much data to send (I was planning on thinking this through but never got around to it)
 - \recent flag changes highestmodseq? probably nobody cares and makes it more difficult for server.
 - condstore: is anyone really using per-flag modseq counters?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email