Re: [MORG] draft-ietf-morg-multimailbox-search-05 - WGLC

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 04 February 2011 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: morg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: morg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 805293A692E for <morg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:18:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.866
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.866 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ujnZAzD8CcK5 for <morg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:18:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68233A68FC for <morg@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:18:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwc10 with SMTP id 10so2716854iwc.31 for <morg@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:21:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=V7/wXZJpWElcsjFLhh5VY9ce5y6uBEiJh5ekC0q40oA=; b=tlsr7hKg/l5wWNSTQ0Rk1hB7nKCv0Ev5BKT6QwhdH1INRCROt65blWmWuBDPjEDG9X P0BF2NVqtWodjsq7az5X+xjbJkGNJLUgdgKnsdJExfHl56Z7/VcqWkx9j11zV8ChQ/MN rLsTO63IeiLBeQSmWIIBrgHEmGVjnQphZA9OY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=A3yzPZUANNHr0XGAsMBSRlhWm0Ks6CDcuTPreZLiGV2tkXkd0hn5YnpMf76o2Z5ehp znVVSsiUX3iJnzZosJJJqQA2p2n1cud56fFDSGDJ+uYZNiQjuI3YF4beuWRTd6R2OZfh bpXbwtywDH4DslwVQBH8AMKWS/+/7rrOgZT9U=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.164.73 with SMTP id f9mr14908232icy.156.1296846755756; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:12:35 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.34.13 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:12:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1296843508.18488.360.camel@hurina>
References: <AANLkTikk7E2+jp-1EO19=FeQ+4BgeEUSr1wU61cd7ZN1@mail.gmail.com> <BBB6C511-6543-4D2C-96C6-0BF0AFDFC966@iki.fi> <AANLkTinRmwLgxGA42XpZ4VZPO_FUjE+oGXc20cS5rY6E@mail.gmail.com> <1296843508.18488.360.camel@hurina>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:12:35 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: fhtT3FbAxjG6R6HertQQegeRjFE
Message-ID: <AANLkTik-ZPD3AYC386QzrxudTx8Uhs6xcea35rcbRuGg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: morg <morg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MORG] draft-ietf-morg-multimailbox-search-05 - WGLC
X-BeenThere: morg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Messaging Organization <morg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/morg>, <mailto:morg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/morg>
List-Post: <mailto:morg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:morg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/morg>, <mailto:morg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 19:18:16 -0000

Hi, Timo.

>>    S: * ESEARCH (TAG "tag1" MAILBOX "folder1" UIDVALIDITY 1) UID ALL
>>    4001,4003,4005,4007,4009
>>    S: * ESEARCH (TAG "tag2" MAILBOX "folder1" UIDVALIDITY 6789023554)
>>    UID ALL 195001:195004,169788
>
> UIDVALIDITY changes rather suddenly in this example, so I think that's
> just unnecessary confusion. Also the second one's UID set isn't sorted
> as it should be.

The UIDVALIDITY change does seem odd.  Given the UID ranges, it seems
intentional, but a little weird.  Alexey, did you have a particular
reason for including an example like that, without textual
explanation?

The sequence set does not need to be sorted; why do you say "as it
should be"?  According to RFC 3501, sorting it is a "MAY":

sequence-set    = (seq-number / seq-range) *("," sequence-set)
                    ; set of seq-number values, regardless of order.
                    ; Servers MAY coalesce overlaps and/or execute the
                    ; sequence in any order.
                    ; Example: a message sequence number set of
                    ; 2,4:7,9,12:* for a mailbox with 15 messages is
                    ; equivalent to 2,4,5,6,7,9,12,13,14,15
                    ; Example: a message sequence number set of *:4,5:7
                    ; for a mailbox with 10 messages is equivalent to
                    ; 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,5,6,7 and MAY be reordered and
                    ; overlap coalesced to be 4,5,6,7,8,9,10.

I actually think it's good to have an example where they're not
sorted, to make sure it's understood that clients MUST deal with that.

Barry