Re: [imapext] IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals - draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-01
Jayantheesh S B <j.sb@sea.samsung.com> Thu, 28 January 2016 21:03 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 0FF411AD2F6 for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:03:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 D9muGLpV0E2N for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wguard01.sdsamerica.net (mx1.sdsamerica.net [206.67.236.191]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C9051AD0CF for <imapext@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:03:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Jayantheesh S B <j.sb@sea.samsung.com>
To: "imapext@ietf.org" <imapext@ietf.org>, "alexey.melnikov@isode.com" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Thread-Topic: [imapext] IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals - draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-01
Thread-Index: AQHRLsKj0Pxv6ogMSk2DrJiIfWLUUZ7BlBAAgAA67ICAT/B+UA==
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 21:02:58 +0000
Message-ID: <32632fae99ba42028794d611b8e31b41@SEAMBX01.sea.samsung.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20151204031930.103a4fd0@elandnews.com> <CACU8CfTVYYWjwPUQNLuAuh-sb-VRRQ7Vxw1BpPK6hjMY7wAzzg@mail.gmail.com> <5666FA20.3060308@isode.com> <56672B8D.5010609@teamaol.com>
In-Reply-To: <56672B8D.5010609@teamaol.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_32632fae99ba42028794d611b8e31b41SEAMBX01seasamsungcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: none
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imapext/bkzaWhSeCXwm97Jtbry277TKh-4>
Cc: "S Moonesamy (sm+ietf@elandsys.com)" <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: [imapext] IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals - draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-01
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, 28 Jan 2016 21:03:05 -0000
Hi Alexey, I agree with not to restrict this with only APPEND command. All, Kindly share your review comments for this draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-01. Regards, Jay From: imapext [mailto:imapext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stu Brandt Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 2:12 PM To: imapext@ietf.org Subject: Re: [imapext] IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals - draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-01 Alexey - I agree with Jamie...restricting to just APPEND (and MULTIAPPEND, and CATENATE) seems unnecessary. Thinking of potential new extensions (e.g. REPLACE), there could likely be additional cases where the motivation for LITERAL- applies. - Stu On 12/8/15 10:41 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: On 04/12/2015 18:35, Jamie Nicolson wrote: Apologies if this was discussed before, but why limit the LITERAL- size restriction to APPEND? Why not just make it apply to all commands: any literal > 4KB must be sent as a synchronizing literal. This might be easier for clients and servers to implement, so that the code for processing literals doesn't need to know which command it belongs to. The impact on other commands would be very limited, since they will almost never need to send a literal that large. I personally don't mind if it applies to all commands. Other thoughts? On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:25 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com<mailto:sm+ietf@elandsys.com>> wrote: Hello, The second draft on our charter about "IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals" [1]. Could the working group please review draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-01 and send comments to the mailing list? Regards, S. Moonesamy (as imapapdb WG Chair) 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-01 _______________________________________________ imapext mailing list imapext@ietf.org<mailto:imapext@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext _______________________________________________ imapext mailing list imapext@ietf.org<mailto:imapext@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext _______________________________________________ imapext mailing list imapext@ietf.org<mailto:imapext@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext
- [imapext] IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals - draf… S Moonesamy
- Re: [imapext] IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals - … Jamie Nicolson
- Re: [imapext] IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals - … Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [imapext] IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals - … Stu Brandt
- Re: [imapext] IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals - … Jayantheesh S B
- Re: [imapext] IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals - … Alexey Melnikov