IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [imapext] qresync WG adoption call

Michael M Slusarz <slusarz@horde.org> Mon, 20 May 2013 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <slusarz@horde.org>
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 2CC8E21F96DE for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 12:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.422
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 mFkDIG2ob8dn for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 12:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe2d:43:76:96:30:40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5202321F96D5 for <imapext@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2013 12:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.35]) by qmta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id eKWE1l0030lTkoCA4KtcPC; Mon, 20 May 2013 19:53:36 +0000
Received: from bigworm.curecanti.org ([71.229.167.0]) by omta04.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id eKta1l00d00qwSn8QKtbkj; Mon, 20 May 2013 19:53:35 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: slusarz) by bigworm.curecanti.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9770468068 for <imapext@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2013 13:53:03 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from schrute.curecanti.org (schrute.curecanti.org [172.18.5.4]) by bigworm.curecanti.org (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Mon, 20 May 2013 13:53:03 -0600
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 13:53:03 -0600
Message-ID: <20130520135303.Horde.npUBqY2PMh-9C3OAQje4LA1@bigworm.curecanti.org>
From: Michael M Slusarz <slusarz@horde.org>
To: imapext@ietf.org
References: <CAKHUCzxM2C4tyVDQfUVVTm2ecXVHLE7pZBAa=7EpmCUv8OQ-jA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKHUCzxM2C4tyVDQfUVVTm2ecXVHLE7pZBAa=7EpmCUv8OQ-jA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H5 (6.1.0-git)
Accept-Language: en
X-Originating-IP: 172.18.5.4
X-Remote-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/21.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"; DelSp="Yes"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1369079616; bh=TQdyarb83M5JcdK6i0SIxmEmS8/tG+6q4gxjBwl/4es=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Date:Message-ID:From:To: Subject:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=TK43MoX3rzR48kBDHpaGFC3trj+gR0l6QJvtddiIVIPqzCjbkrz5PesTazL1vJC2q 3Zf83LSr/x3NFb5kHPTq8Jkw6d1Xl4VwHW41tOiCo6Bq1yGyq5mVYI47S+vXVbRWR9 o8KkQCswxvjTwq8xiLb6l5ih648NbgGO0ZO2/sp4OA7UycSveYiU+SsFlA42Yuuo63 XBFIex7HyGt/MlwI9c5/6sm3YDjGBdx+Yf/wMmTYSZIgswbJhrG+AQ0HoGdcw59tqG YE4PvauEGREZbsFxZnuDDy1OPhtfck1inwiHLCcV62mZpBV06a8UOEwCTePxa2uSqV OyyA9jQo6Yemg==
Subject: Re: [imapext] qresync WG adoption call
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: Mon, 20 May 2013 19:53:42 -0000

Quoting Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>:

> Folks,
>
> We now have two drafts by Alexey published:
>
>  - draft-melnikov-rfc4551-bis-00 (CONDSTORE)
>  - draft-melnikov-5162bis-00 (QRESYNC)
>
> I'd like to propose that the working group adopt these as our start point.

Does this mean the current inclination is to issue updates of the  
current documents rather than trying to combine into a single "IMAP  
synchronization extensions" doc?

I personally feel the latter makes more sense from a protocol  
implementor's standpoint, especially since the subtleties and  
interplay between the two extensions could more easily be explained.   
Although I understand this requires drafting of an entirely new  
document rather than incremental tweaking of existing text.

michael

___________________________________
Michael Slusarz [slusarz@horde.org]

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email