Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-rfc2088bis-01.txt

On 17 December 2014 at 18:35, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>  I revived and updated LITERAL+ extension. I also added LITERAL- extension
> (same as LITERAL+, but disallowed in APPEND).
>
>
Given the current discussions, wouldn't LITERAL- be better expressed as a
LITERAL+ with a limited size? I accept that the normal case for a large
literal is APPEND,  but the issue is a general one with the size of the
literal rather than the specific case of APPEND, isn't it?

This could even be an advertised token-sequence limit, but that's probably
too hard to express. Possible, though, to limit the amount of
non-synchronized literal data with an entire command, which'd handle the
MULTIAPPEND case as well.

To give an specific case, a client can always side-step a simple APPEND
LITERAL+ limit by just using CATENATE in a fairly abusive manner.

Dave.

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