Re: [imapext] AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06

[Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015, at 06:46, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > Please find the proposed text for conveying  that there no limit for mailboxes.
> >
> > NEW
> > 3.  Mailbox specific APPENDLIMIT
> >
> >    IMAP server can have mailbox specific APPENDLIMIT value, which will
> >    not be advertised as part of CAPABILITY response. The IMAP server can
> >    publish a huge limit for a mailbox to convey that there is no APPENDLIMIT
> >    for a mailbox. The following  subsections describe the changes to the
> >    STATUS and LIST commands in  support of this situation.
> > END
> 
> I am not happy with using "a huge limit", nor any particular number
> for this.  Sure, the IMAP grammar limits the length of a literal to
> "number", which is defined thus in RFC 3501:
> 
>       number          = 1*DIGIT
>                     ; Unsigned 32-bit integer
>                     ; (0 <= n < 4,294,967,296)
> 
> So, yes, we *could* say (rather than the vague "a huge limit") that
> 4294967296 is what you use if you want to say that there's no limit.
> But I don't like overloading things that way: this *is* advertising a
> limit, rather than saying that there isn't one.
> 
> Why do we think there's anything wrong with using, say, the word
> "NONE" (either case-insensitive or case-sensitive; I don't care)?
> What's wrong with this?:
> 
> C: t1 STATUS INBOX (APPENDLIMIT)
> S: * STATUS INBOX (APPENDLIMIT NONE)
> S: t1 OK STATUS completed
> 

If you're going to do that, why not make it (APPENDLIMIT NIL),
which already has exactly the meaning that we want?

Bron.