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