Re: The IMAP APPENDLIMIT Extension - version 04
Michael M Slusarz <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.imapext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20150320102021.Horde.fwAFnWXIpWksMVRTts0t2uX@bigworm.curecanti.org> |
Quoting Pete Maclean <[email protected]>: > Thanks, Bron. I am aware of Java's lack of unsigned integers having > had to work around it before. (I find it a curious lack although I > have no idea of the rationale behind it.) So, yes, I come to agree > that UINT64_MAX would be a poor choice, never mind an unnecessarily > large one. So how about a compromise of, say, UINT48_MAX? I think we discussed this earlier in this (or a related) thread. But it probably makes the most sense to use an unsigned positive 63-bit value, as Bron recommended, to remain consistent with other IMAP extensions, e.g. CONDSTORE: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7162#section-3.1 michael ___________________________________ Michael Slusarz [[email protected]] _______________________________________________ imapext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext