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

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 06/03/2013 15:57, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
>
> --On March 5, 2013 at 2:57:25 PM +0000 Alexey Melnikov 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> So please comment on whether you think this work is worth doing and on
>> the proposed charter text.
>>
>> 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.
>
> What about also doing an update to RFC4549?

I am not against revising RFC 4549, for example to fold sections from 
CONDSTORE & QRESYNC into it. But I am somewhat worried to volunteer for 
something that might drag beyond the end of 2013. I think I would like 
to hear what other people think about this.

> I think the big thing client implementors want is a single clear 
> specification of extensions that describe how to accurately do mailbox 
> synchronization. To that end I would even argue that we should be 
> looking at pieces to take out to achieve that goal. For example, how 
> many clients actually make use of the condition store piece of 
> CONDSTORE, as opposed to just the SELECT/SEARCH sync operations? Same 
> goes for QRESYNC - what pieces of it have actually been used by 
> clients? Are there bits that could be removed?

Per flag modseq is an interesting question to discuss.
Another thing I would like to obsolete is the old SEARCH MODSEQ response 
syntax, I would really like to move to ESEARCH.

But these are just some ideas to think about and discuss.

> So I'd like to see more than a simple rev of the documents to fix 
> errata - or at least lets not rule that out right now.

Ack.