Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-rfc2088bis-01.txt
Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.imapext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 05/03/2015 16:08, Dave Cridland wrote: > > On 5 March 2015 at 11:09, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On 19/12/2014 09:26, Dave Cridland wrote: >> >> On 17 December 2014 at 18:35, Alexey Melnikov >> <[email protected] <mailto:[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 can go along with that. What is a reasonable limit? > > > Configurable and advertised, but I'd go for around 2048 octets for a > single token. I've seen lots of small messages around 3-4Kb, so how about 4096 instead? It is still going to be a single TCP packet in most cases. > Also, this has interactions with APPENDLIMIT. > > Any other opinions on what people prefer? > _______________________________________________ imapext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext