Re: [imapext] AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06 (Section 2)

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Fri, 11 December 2015 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 00FDF1AD0C1; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:43:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 dvu5nF68oyAQ; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:43:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from statler.isode.com (Statler.isode.com [62.232.206.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D046D1AD0BE; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:43:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1449844996; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=DWStdjvpOMlFNrbiEYSadTmrlAAfiDLaLgV+r758HTM=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=eQwsfgQY3Itt8Ofbxpz/5n9ylRWvvvl/Nn2/YTn/z4mL1B71ZkpIglvZ36WmKrZ6UVlfz6 ZUEWhKnjtwuRDGwsNqZdiMIGB84eJpn6NR5QYJMMMCFfonbfSGXrWJcFFoT1BGIPkkY65H vovgVoj6a3F5/DgWwHVUwtH2BffoCAw=;
Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <VmrhBABBx2ts@statler.isode.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 14:43:16 +0000
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Naren <narendrasingh.bisht@gmail.com>, imapext@ietf.org
References: <CALaySJLE_6+vbeB-SeMk1VHDAtq2VvS9yKe9dhQ2LTzr4y=oTg@mail.gmail.com> <DEA84B8F15992B4EA87D5CF3D0EC5F98AE4FCFD8@DRTW-EXMB04.telecom.sna.samsung.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151209223348.0d1a66e0@resistor.net> <CAHC+rVHPmcpLKogQdFrCo+P-GaALoWLLGEw=MeA7hnarQhEYLw@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151210080422.10a00dc0@elandnews.com> <5669B439.9010807@isode.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20151210122047.1044fe90@elandnews.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <566AE0E9.9060100@isode.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 14:42:49 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20151210122047.1044fe90@elandnews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imapext/icqCgmqgLLLcWibLOVaNHkFA4v0>
Cc: Narendra Bisht <ns.bisht@sta.samsung.com>, draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension@ietf.org, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: [imapext] AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06 (Section 2)
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: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 14:43:20 -0000

Hi SM,

On 10/12/2015 20:34, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Alexey, Naren,
> At 09:19 10-12-2015, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> The it means that the limit applies to all users. However the server 
>> can also return another limit for some users after logging in, which 
>> will override the globally announced limit. So it is not OR, but AND/OR.
>
> This is from Section 2:
>
>   C: t1 CAPABILITY
>   S: * CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 ID APPENDLIMIT=257890
>   S: t1 OK foo
>
> The explanation (above that text in the draft) says that 257890 is for 
> all mailboxes.  In Section 3 there is the following:
>
>   "IMAP server can have mailbox specific APPENDLIMIT value, which
>    will not be advertised as part of CAPABILITY response."
>
> Won't the IMAP client assume that the IMAP server would not have 
> advertised "257890" as the limit if there is a mailbox specific 
> APPENDLIMIT value?
Right, if the server has different limits for different mailboxes, it 
would have advertised just "APPENDLIMIT".

I was talking about APPENDLIMIT=<n> being returned before and after 
authentication and what it means. See my reply to Dave.

Best Regards,
Alexey