IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [imapext] AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06

"Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Thu, 17 December 2015 03:39 UTC

Return-Path: <adrien@qbik.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 BE44E1AC424 for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 19:39:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 CY6ioFwu-aHd for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 19:39:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BODYBAG.qbik.local (smtp.qbik.com [122.56.26.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 496911AC426 for <imapext@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 19:39:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: From [192.168.1.146] (unverified [192.168.1.146]) by SMTP Server [192.168.1.146] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v7.0.0 (Build 1)) with SMTP id <0000000035@BODYBAG.qbik.local>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:39:02 +1300
From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 03:39:02 +0000
Message-Id: <emcf7f771e-a84b-4df3-b9ff-06dd5417a655@bodybag>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVD641FWp_BpSdjRQJsMsX4-1j3pc3HuttzNj8=37WusnA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.23421.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imapext/tz14QkF5RHw0SiY2LLPLoVSOLww>
Cc: "imapext@ietf.org" <imapext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [imapext] AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06
X-BeenThere: imapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
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, 17 Dec 2015 03:39:19 -0000


------ Original Message ------
From: "Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Bron Gondwana" <brong@fastmail.fm>
Cc: "imapext@ietf.org" <imapext@ietf.org>
Sent: 17/12/2015 9:14:31 a.m.
Subject: Re: [imapext] AD review of 
draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06

>>>  Why do we think there's anything wrong with using, say, the word
>>>  "NONE" (either case-insensitive or case-sensitive; I don't care)?
>>>  What's wrong with this?:
>>>
>>>  C: t1 STATUS INBOX (APPENDLIMIT)
>>>  S: * STATUS INBOX (APPENDLIMIT NONE)
>>>  S: t1 OK STATUS completed
>>
>>  If you're going to do that, why not make it (APPENDLIMIT NIL),
>>  which already has exactly the meaning that we want?
>
>Yes, I'd forgotten about the existing token "NIL".  I like that 
>approach.
+1

Definitely not a fan of overloading the meaning of magic numbers


>
>Barry
>
>_______________________________________________
>imapext mailing list
>imapext@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email