Re: [IMAP] APPEND Command Usage

Quoting Jayantheesh S B <[email protected]>:

> Please find the updated version of the draft attached.
>
> Changes in this version:
>
> 1.  APPEND command response handling changes (Reused TOOBIG  
> response-text from rfc4469 )
> 2.  Retrieval of per mailbox limit in  authenticated state by using  
> LIST and STATUS command (Reference rfc5819)
>
> Kindly share your comments.

Some quick thoughts:

- Section 2 says a "client SHALL not try to upload mail more than  
advertised limit in the APPEND command.".  I would think that should  
be MUST, not SHALL.  If a client understands APPENDLIMIT, it knows the  
maximum size the server would accept.  Sending data over this limit is  
explicitly ignoring process/resource limits advertised by the server.

- Section 4: It seems like a good place to reiterate that LITERAL+  
SHOULD NOT be used, even if APPENDLIMIT is available, since there may  
be other reasons why a server would reject an APPEND and the client  
should only proceed with APPENDs only when the initial "handshake" has  
been accepted by the server.  APPEND is a place where we probably need  
the extra round-trip in exchange for preventing potentially large  
amounts of bandwidth to be used.

- There's discussion of LIST + STATUS (RFC 5819).  But this is  
actually an addition to STATUS itself.  The spec should be written as  
extending STATUS, and then a discussion/example of how this can be  
used if 5819 is supported.  (If we want to force an APPENDLIMIT  
client/server to also be LIST-STATUS compliant for performance  
reasons, that's fine.  But seems to be a policy decision rather than a  
technical explanation.)

michael

___________________________________
Michael Slusarz [[email protected]]

_______________________________________________
imapext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext