Re: Review for first draft for draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension
Jamie Nicolson <[email protected]> Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:20:15 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.imapext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CACU8CfR_9DbFSMOv=6x7=VJ74erbjgpBtgvV5Yg8Qwt=nACCsg@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:45 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > On 24 Jul 2015, at 02:02, Jamie Nicolson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Jayantheesh S B <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Jamie, >> >> >> >> How does the client know whether there is a mailbox-specific limit unless >> it issues a SELECT or LIST command? If a limit is specified in the >> CAPABILITY, does that mean there are no mailbox-specific limits? I thought >> it was possible to have both. >> >> >> >> Let’s keep it simple. >> >> We cannot have both. >> >> >> >> When APPENDLIMIT value is specified in the capability response, that >> indicates that server does not support mailbox specific limit. >> >> It’s one for everyone. >> >> E.g. >> >> CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 ID APPENDLIMIT=257890 >> >> >> >> When APPENDLIMIT is omitted in capability response, that means server is >> having mailbox specific append limits. >> >> E.g. >> >> CAPABILITY IMAP4rev1 ID APPENDLIMIT >> >> In this case client can get it by LIST or SELECT response. >> > > OK, so a server implementor that wants system-wide mailbox limits can just > specify APPENDLIMIT=XXX in the CAPABILITY and then ignore the parts of the > spec that discuss per-mailbox limits? Sounds good to me. > > > From a server implementor's point of view this is easier to implement. > > From a client implementor's point of view, having a new STATUS item which > is only available some of the time adds asymmetry to the protocol, which > makes it slightly more difficult to implement, especially in presence of > multiple extensions. > > You're saying it's burdensome on the client to implement a fallback to SELECT in order to determine per-mailbox limits if the server doesn't include it in the LIST response? OK, I can see that, although the client already has to deal with whether or not the server supports LIST-EXTENDED, LIST-STATUS, APPENDLIMIT, etc. _______________________________________________ imapext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext