Re: IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals - draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-01

On 04/12/2015 18:35, Jamie Nicolson wrote:
> Apologies if this was discussed before, but why limit the LITERAL- 
> size restriction to APPEND? Why not just make it apply to all 
> commands: any literal > 4KB must be sent as a synchronizing literal. 
> This might be easier for clients and servers to implement, so that the 
> code for processing literals doesn't need to know which command it 
> belongs to. The impact on other commands would be very limited, since 
> they will almost never need to send a literal that large.
I personally don't mind if it applies to all commands. Other thoughts?
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:25 AM, S Moonesamy <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     Hello,
>
>     The second draft on our charter about "IMAP4 non-synchronizing
>     literals" [1].  Could the working group please review
>     draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-01 and send comments to the mailing
>     list?
>
>     Regards,
>     S. Moonesamy (as imapapdb WG Chair)
>
>     1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-01
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     imapext mailing list
>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> imapext mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext

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