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

[Cyrus Daboo <[e-mail]>]

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 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?

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.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo