Re: [pop3ext] UIDL response to CAPA command
Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@oracle.com> Sun, 18 November 2012 02:46 UTC
Return-Path: <bill.shannon@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: pop3ext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pop3ext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E0C21F860E for <pop3ext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:46:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.046
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MXQDXPw9kqH2 for <pop3ext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:46:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com (brmea-mail-1.Sun.COM [192.18.98.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F18F21F84D3 for <pop3ext@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:46:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brmsunmail2-central.uk.sun.com ([10.79.11.29]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id qAI2kPFt016991; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:46:25 GMT
Received: from nissan.sfbay.sun.com (dhcp-amer-vpn-adc-anyconnect-10-154-158-73.vpn.oracle.com [10.154.158.73]) by brmsunmail2-central.uk.sun.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4/ENSMAIL,v2.4) with ESMTP id qAI2kN5f017568; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:46:23 GMT
Received: from [192.168.0.4] (vostro [192.168.0.4]) by nissan.sfbay.sun.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qAI2jloB004673; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:45:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50A84C12.1060308@oracle.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:46:42 -0800
From: Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randall Gellens <randy@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <50A409B1.9020702@oracle.com> <196CBE3CC7222C8957041F15@dhcp-amer-vpn-rmdc-anyconnect-10-159-123-100 .vpn.oracle.com> <50A42344.6080502@oracle.com> <p0624060bccccdd31ec74@[99.111.97.136]> <50A7449C.9070904@oracle.com> <p06240610ccccf8b75ff1@[99.111.97.136]>
In-Reply-To: <p06240610ccccf8b75ff1@[99.111.97.136]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Chris Newman <chris.newman@oracle.com>, pop3ext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pop3ext] UIDL response to CAPA command
X-BeenThere: pop3ext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of extensions and updates to Post Office Protocol \(POP3\)" <pop3ext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pop3ext>, <mailto:pop3ext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pop3ext>
List-Post: <mailto:pop3ext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pop3ext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pop3ext>, <mailto:pop3ext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 02:46:28 -0000
Thanks, Randall, now it's clear. I guess I was reading "Announced states" / "both" as it *may* be announced in both states, not it *must* be announced in both states. Especially since the text seems to have explicit rules for lots of other cases, but not for this case. Randall Gellens wrote on 11/17/2012 12:23 AM: > Hi Bill, > > At 12:02 AM -0800 11/17/12, Bill Shannon wrote: > >> Sorry, I couldn't tell if you were agreeing with Chris or not. > > My apologies. I agree with Chris. Sorry for not being clear. > >> >> I understand how it works for capabilities that have parameters. >> >> What I don't understand is what the rules are for capabilities that >> don't have parameters. > > The capability description indicates in which states the capability is announced. > >> >> Let's try the simple yes or no question... >> >> Does RFC 2449 allow the UIDL capability to be missing from a CAPA >> response before authentication, but included in a CAPA response >> after authentication? > > No. The description for it says it is announced in both states. > >> >> The spec says: >> >> Capabilities available in the AUTHORIZATION state MUST be announced >> in both states. >> >> UIDL is not available in the AUTHORIZATION state, only the TRANSACTION >> state, so the above doesn't apply. > > The UIDL capability is announced in both states. The UIDL command is only > available in TRANSACTION state. > >> >> UIDL has no arguments, so all the rules about arguments don't apply. >> >> Are there other rules in the spec that I'm missing? > > Let me know if what I've said is unclear or ambiguous. > >> >> >> Randall Gellens wrote on 11/16/2012 10:36 PM: >>> At 3:03 PM -0800 11/14/12, Bill Shannon wrote: >>> >>>> Well, that was my initial reading as well, and I'd be happy with that >>>> interpretation, but the spec says: >>>> >>>> If a capability is announced in both states, but the argument might >>>> differ after authentication, this possibility MUST be stated in the >>>> capability description. >>>> >>>> (These requirements allow a client to issue only one CAPA command if >>>> it does not use any TRANSACTION-only capabilities, or any >>>> capabilities whose values may differ after authentication.) >>>> >>>> Note that it talks about "arguments" or "values", not about whether >>>> the capability itself might be present or not. >>> >>> The wording about arguments and values applies to those capabilities that are >>> announced in both states. The text is saying that the client has to be >>> able to >>> know if a capability that it wants to use might only be announced after >>> authenticating, or if it is announced before authenticating, if it might have >>> different parameters after authenticating. If so, it needs to issue a second >>> CAPA after authenticating, but if not, it can perhaps save a round-trip and >>> pipeline other commands right after authenticating. >>> >>> A quick check of the IANA registry at >>> >>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/pop3-extension-mechanism/pop3-extension-mechanism.xml >>> >>> shows only two capabilities whose parameters may differ: LOGIN-DELAY and EXPIRE >>> (which makes sense since these express server policy that may very well differ >>> per user). I don't see any capabilities listed that are only announced in >>> TRANSACTION state, although IMPLEMENTATION is allowed to be (but of course no >>> client behavior is affected). >>> >>> >>>> It's that ambiguity that caused me to ask, just to be sure... >>> >>> Sorry if the wording seemed ambiguous. The intent is to group together for >>> special notice two kinds of capabilities: those that are only announced in >>> TRANSACTION state and those that are announced in both AUTHENTICATION and >>> TRANSACTION but whose parameters may differ between the states. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Chris Newman wrote on 11/14/12 14:02: >>>>> Section 6.8 says: >>>>> >>>>> Announced states / possible differences: >>>>> both / no >>>>> >>>>> So it looks like you're not allowed by RFC 2994's CAPA registration for UIDL >>>>> advertisement to change after authentication. >>>>> >>>>> - Chris >>>>> >>>>> --On November 14, 2012 13:14:25 -0800 Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@oracle.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Does RFC 2994 allow the UIDL capability to be missing from a CAPA >>>>>> response before authentication, but included in a CAPA response >>>>>> after authentication? >> >>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> pop3ext mailing list >>>> pop3ext@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pop3ext >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pop3ext mailing list >> pop3ext@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pop3ext > >
- [pop3ext] UIDL response to CAPA command Bill Shannon
- Re: [pop3ext] UIDL response to CAPA command Bill Shannon
- Re: [pop3ext] UIDL response to CAPA command Chris Newman
- Re: [pop3ext] UIDL response to CAPA command Bill Shannon
- Re: [pop3ext] UIDL response to CAPA command Bill Shannon
- Re: [pop3ext] UIDL response to CAPA command Randall Gellens
- Re: [pop3ext] UIDL response to CAPA command Bill Shannon
- Re: [pop3ext] UIDL response to CAPA command Randall Gellens
- Re: [pop3ext] UIDL response to CAPA command Bill Shannon
- Re: [pop3ext] UIDL response to CAPA command Randall Gellens