IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 17 December 2015 17:20 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 6E2C01A1B11 for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:20:56 -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 99LtW-UHW40n for <imapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:20:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from statler.isode.com (Statler.isode.com [62.232.206.189]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A0F1A1B28 for <imapext@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:20:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1450372853; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=tXYHVpby2BWeCMoQ2BgS77YINS5/0v5BKonFbOWAzfs=; 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=SCzeBTn3kkEkfqIIiVfbIFibhF5pQ1pCUblvfwOSs4kyHCw3RbyhtAXZagLO7aoKvZlvQ6 zq254u+gQvoEI2CpMoq5Q/tbvwSuyDnTgY0HZyr+6oOHy51nueGH6UoZKxs6nb8DVh43yO Sva17bLNfjMa4HZzaD4aOFxe+/ThTwA=;
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 <VnLu9QBBxwNw@statler.isode.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:20:53 +0000
To: Narendra Bisht <ns.bisht@sea.samsung.com>, "imapext@ietf.org" <imapext@ietf.org>
References: <emcf7f771e-a84b-4df3-b9ff-06dd5417a655@bodybag> <5A5084CC-6733-45DB-B3D5-4F73285257D0@isode.com> <6679218db47f443794b1ce28452623eb@SEAMBX07.sea.samsung.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <5672EEDE.5060101@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:20:30 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
In-Reply-To: <6679218db47f443794b1ce28452623eb@SEAMBX07.sea.samsung.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/vR_9_7uSm69nFbcySpWluv6q308>
Subject: Re: [imapext] AD review draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06
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, 17 Dec 2015 17:20:56 -0000

Hi,

On 17/12/2015 17:01, Narendra Bisht wrote:
> The data type for APPENDLIMIT is NUMBER.
> Will it accommodate a NIL?

RFC 3501 defines:
status-att-list =  status-att SP number *(SP status-att SP number)


RFC 4466 redefines status-att-list:
status-att-list = status-att-val *(SP status-att-val)
                      ;; Redefines status-att-list from RFC 3501.

status-att-val  = ("MESSAGES" SP number) /
                      ("RECENT" SP number) /
                      ("UIDNEXT" SP nz-number) /
                      ("UIDVALIDITY" SP nz-number) /
                      ("UNSEEN" SP number)
                      ;; Extensions to the STATUS responses
                      ;; should extend this production.
                      ;; Extensions should use the generic
                      ;; syntax defined by tagged-ext.

So, I think you should add RFC 4466 to Normative references, then add 
the following to Section 5 of your draft:

appendlimit-status-att-val = "APPENDLIMIT" SP (number / nil)
status-att-val /= appendlimit-status-att-val
                             ;; status-att-val is defined in RFC 4466

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: imapext [mailto:imapext-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexey Melnikov
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 5:16 AM
> To: imapext@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [imapext] AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06
>
>
>> On 17 Dec 2015, at 03:39, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
>>
>> ------ 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
> I don't think this is a particular important point (there are always limits of some kind), but I like NIL.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email