[lemonade] List of open issues for IMAP NOTIFY
Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Thu, 21 February 2008 14:52 UTC
Return-Path: <lemonade-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-lemonade-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-lemonade-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C573A6E76; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:52:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.214, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 35h4HAsSNomK; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:52:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1760C28C77F; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:52:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: lemonade@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lemonade@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 256FF3A6E76 for <lemonade@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:52:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n5dCjoxDE6Qj for <lemonade@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:52:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782BC28C962 for <lemonade@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:52:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.1.99] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <R72QNgBcrXtI@rufus.isode.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:52:38 +0000
Message-ID: <47BD900B.3030502@isode.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:51:55 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: Lemonade WG <lemonade@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [lemonade] List of open issues for IMAP NOTIFY
X-BeenThere: lemonade@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Enhancements to Internet email to support diverse service enivronments <lemonade.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade>, <mailto:lemonade-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:lemonade@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lemonade-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade>, <mailto:lemonade-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: lemonade-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: lemonade-bounces@ietf.org
Below is the list of major open issues with the document. There are some other minor editorial questions which are not worth discussing at this point. 1). Peter Coates has indicated that his implementation can't report ExpungeMessage without NewMessage or vice versa. I've suggested that we should probably combine NewMessage and ExpungeMessage into a single event. So far I can't think of any disadvantage of this: for example if the client would like to know about expunges (so it can handle VANISHED reported at any time), then it is not a big deal to handle (or ignore) notifications about new messages as well. If the client can't handle expunges, then it wouldn't request either. If you can think of a use case when a client would only want NewMessage, but can't handle ExpungeMessage, please let me know. Another way of handling this issue would be to allow the server to announce that certain event types are bundled together. I am not sure if the extra complexity on clients is worth it. 2). Whether BODY FETCH data item in the NOTIFY command (and the like) should automatically set the \Seen flag on newly delivered/appended messages if it is specified in the NewMessage event. The issue needs to be addressed. I prefer to have the same behavior as in FETCH (for consistency), but I don't have a strong opinion on this. Opinions? 3). Peter Coates has suggested that only the SELECTED mailbox matching criteria should apply to the currently selected mailbox. Currently the draft suggests that any mailbox matching criteria can apply to the currently selected mailbox. Speaking as an individual participant in the WG: as this is marginally easier to implement for servers, I am now leaning toward accepting Peter's proposal. Any objections? 4). Peter Coates has suggested removal of ADD/SET keyword in the NOTIFY command, or restrict NOTIFY command to a single event-group. Speaking as an individual participant in the WG: I think we want to allow for at least 2 event groups (one for the currently selected mailbox and one for all other mailboxes). But I can also see use cases for different events on shared mailboxes, etc. If we have 2, a rule of good design suggests that we should allow for any number. Now, regarding SET versa ADD. If we allow for multiple event groups above, this means that one need to store them in a server as a list anyway. So restricting NOTIFY to a single event group is not going to make NOTIFY easier to implement for servers. I also see some arguments about ADD (e.g. now monitor this new mailbox). So speaking as an individual, I would like to keep multiple event groups and SET/ADD as is. If you disagree, please speak up *now*. _______________________________________________ lemonade mailing list lemonade@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade Supplemental Web Site: http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade
- [lemonade] List of open issues for IMAP NOTIFY Alexey Melnikov