IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [imapext] AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-03

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Sat, 05 March 2016 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
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 436401B345F for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 09:08:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 cEZcfdrZnGU2 for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 09:08:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36BC11B345E for <imapext@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 09:08:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E6A207E8 for <imapext@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 12:08:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 05 Mar 2016 12:08:14 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=myfsoyGUBTC0TyALwNtqdAb9joY=; b=qXp1N4 si3MWOjzx+rRqCVBIZSE8IQ2rkq+8uj1XV5syxNzGLnjHx1iZtcVctw9m2bgKn8u +YVBY8yKXFV4SlHeyiBM16WMlz9pAcB20HnM/VBxW58uUFsSeC761OMDO6e3caQ/ bbHYJ2KkCBlkGVBcd353enWRKflUsNLmbZnHE=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=myfsoyGUBTC0TyA LwNtqdAb9joY=; b=LSVl9b/PHQblL5fRZB7ail5ZvptwzHuSfYE6MWyHn93fpdQ ZwIbSMQF3ZEPLpZTVM+KjCb7gswTKIVuRWzPKAZUH9TBP5h6T8s6pX3k2Dk7cfGF yTTBLhBGkQ4uJ/7zRWCQ8WRCstedE4paDxvMU+YZ5YapVmWTFdeCJsMfRXlY=
X-Sasl-enc: MrAvTidRujQfjUyd1NeDnVzV6PpFPKPRp3KXmuqFCnQ0 1457197694
Received: from [10.236.32.117] (unknown [85.255.232.178]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2854CC0001A; Sat, 5 Mar 2016 12:08:14 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13D15)
In-Reply-To: <587132AF-8DDE-46ED-A37E-A8E7A28352F6@fastmail.fm>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 17:09:54 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <72D2AFD9-EC8A-4358-BCD3-528829E53FB5@fastmail.fm>
References: <CALaySJJxkYW+w1wY7NNH73P5qXoxutYz2VeM4E23BG0U_U5p5g@mail.gmail.com> <1011FF8D-99AC-491F-A12A-B3DBAD55FAE9@fastmail.fm> <CALaySJLL2F=vmQvJXmm_miCveXhNiQRgLLDEir8K54RLU6VcFA@mail.gmail.com> <587132AF-8DDE-46ED-A37E-A8E7A28352F6@fastmail.fm>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/imapext/vOxHQiEXIJg9Eky9NBSi0vtbmIA>
Cc: "imapext@ietf.org" <imapext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [imapext] AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-03
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: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 17:08:16 -0000

> On 5 Mar 2016, at 16:58, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> Hi Barry,
> 
> On 5 Mar 2016, at 16:19, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> 
>>>> In bullet 1:
>>>> 
>>>>     (The server is allowed to send the tagged BAD/NO response before
>>>>     reading the whole non-synchronizing literal.)
>>>> 
>>>> Substantive: Shouldn't that be "the server is not allowed" (missing "not")?
>>> 
>>> No, the sentence is correct as written. Some servers send BAD right after
>>> observing the non-synchronising literal prefix and that is Ok.
>> 
>> Hm, but then I think the sentence is meaningless.  The server still
>> has to read and discard the literal, so whether it sends the BAD
>> before or after it does that hardly matters.  What are you really
>> trying to say with that parenthetical that's useful?
> 
> This is a valuable implementation advice.

This also potentially affects how client implementations are coded.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email