IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: draft-ietf-imapext-condstore-05

Alexey Melnikov <Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 15 January 2004 11:28 UTC

Received: from above.proper.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0FBSOib038404; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:28:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-imapext@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i0FBSOcS038402; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:28:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-imapext@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by above.proper.com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0FBSCib038388 for <ietf-imapext@imc.org>; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 03:28:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com)
Received: from isode.com (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com via TCP (with SMTP (internal)) with ESMTPA; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:27:53 +0000
Message-ID: <4005CBB7.2090308@isode.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:07:35 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ken Murchison <ken@oceana.com>
CC: Steve.Hole@MessagingDirect.com, IMAP Extensions WG <ietf-imapext@imc.org>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-imapext-condstore-05
References: <40007395.10403@oceana.com> <40059A94.3000700@oceana.com>
In-Reply-To: <40059A94.3000700@oceana.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-imapext@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-imapext/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-imapext.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-imapext-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>

Ken Murchison wrote:

> Ken Murchison wrote:
>
>> I just starting working on a CONDSTORE implementation in Cyrus, and I 
>> wanted to make a few comments/suggestions before the document gets 
>> too far along in the queue.
>>
>> Here is what I have come up with over the last day.  I might have 
>> more as I get further into my implementation.
>
>
> Section 3.6:  The phrase in the first sentence "to include 
> mod-sequence" should be changed to read "to include the highest 
> mod-sequence". 

Correct (as per your explanation below)

> Since the mod-sequence being returned in the untagged SEARCH, SORT and 
> possibly THREAD responses is the *highest* of the messages in the 
> response, shouldn't the extended response tag be HIGHESTMODSEQ instead 
> of MODSEQ?  This seems more intuitive, unless you think it conflicts 
> with the HIGHESTMODSEQ response code. 

I would like not to change syntax at this point. Once again, the draft 
is already approved as RFC.

Alexey

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email