IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jayantheesh S B <j.sb@sea.samsung.com> Thu, 10 December 2015 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <j.sb@sea.samsung.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 876F81A0135; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:27:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 uN08Cdg_TusQ; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:26:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wguard01.sdsamerica.net (bware1.sdsamerica.net [206.67.236.191]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC15D1A0091; Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:26:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Jayantheesh S B <j.sb@sea.samsung.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Naren <narendrasingh.bisht@gmail.com>, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Thread-Topic: [imapext] AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06 (Section 2)
Thread-Index: AQHRMxe8LOkMw8VRmUSFpR/wpMzQCp7EszeA//+3zCmAAF9IgIAAALWA//+uNjA=
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:26:52 +0000
Message-ID: <5c4534ad245c485ab8a94f12d8c1e20c@SEAMBX01.sea.samsung.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> <CAHC+rVEoexsnruY_uAY7t_S4z3PQs6ff8aX7x=48g==98pU4Vg@mail.gmail.com> <5669B3B9.6070802@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <5669B3B9.6070802@isode.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5c4534ad245c485ab8a94f12d8c1e20cSEAMBX01seasamsungcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: none
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imapext/J4_nJ7OuCBwMsUwyQsfvTyRqNGs>
Cc: "draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension@ietf.org>, Narendra Bisht <ns.bisht@sea.samsung.com>, "imapext@ietf.org" <imapext@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 17:27:02 -0000

I agree with Alexey.  So the updated text looks like

"IMAP server MAY advertise this CAPABILITY before or after user has logged in. The client needs to be ready to handle this CAPABILITY irrespective of user authenticated state."


From: imapext [mailto:imapext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexey Melnikov
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 12:18 PM
To: Naren; S Moonesamy
Cc: Narendra Bisht; draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension@ietf.org; Barry Leiba; imapext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [imapext] AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06 (Section 2)

On 10/12/2015 17:15, Naren wrote:

Hi SM,

We can rephrase that sentence to

"IMAP server MAY advertise this CAPABILITY before or after user has logged in.The client SHOULD

IMHO, this is not correct use of SHOULD. The client that doesn't support both is broken. I suggest you replace SHOULD with "needs to" or the like.


be ready to handle this CAPABILITY irrespective of user authenticated state"

We do not see any implications in this being advertised before user logged in.
Can you elaborate more about your concern on this.

Thanks

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:32 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com<mailto:sm+ietf@elandsys.com>> wrote:
Hi Naren,
At 07:52 10-12-2015, Naren wrote:
Our MAY means
(a) The IMAP server can advertise this capability before the user has logged in.
OR
(b) The IMAP server can advertise this capability after the user has logged in.

Based on the AD review [1] and the short discussion about that sentence in Section 2, my opinion is that the intent of the what is written in the draft is not clear.  What are the implications of (a) and (b)?  What if the IMAP server advertises that there is a limit which applies to all mailboxes before the user has logged in?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd)

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/imapext/current/msg05633.html



--
Thanks & Regards
-Narendra




_______________________________________________

imapext mailing list

imapext@ietf.org<mailto:imapext@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email