Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-melnikov-rfc2088bis-01.txt
Dave Cridland <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.imapext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAKHUCzxQkMDf95u5nvAEz3yyFSMKsDXkh9nu3ypF7gqA0fvCAg@mail.gmail.com> |
On 9 March 2015 at 11:34, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 05/03/2015 16:08, Dave Cridland wrote: > > > On 5 March 2015 at 11:09, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> On 19/12/2014 09:26, Dave Cridland wrote: >> >> >> 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 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. > Since my figure was plucked from thin air, I'm happy to go along with anyone else's, but I'm curious as to whether there's any hard data on message sizes and TCP packet sizes on various networks. Dave. _______________________________________________ imapext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext