Re: Referencing RFC 2088 (was: AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06)
Naren <[email protected]> Wed, 9 Dec 2015 18:19:56 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.imapext |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAHC+rVHPSC_soXDozC12Q12GweEbmsWGHv-ABxsszC3X+QSCKA@mail.gmail.com> |
I agree with Adrien, on this. I think MAY will be more appropriate here. On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Adrien de Croy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "S Moonesamy" <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "Jayantheesh S B" < > [email protected]>; "Narendra Bisht" <[email protected]>; > "Alexey Melnikov" <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" < > [email protected]>; "Barry Leiba" < > [email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: 9/12/2015 4:05:57 a.m. > Subject: [imapext] Referencing RFC 2088 (was: AD review of > draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06) > > Hi Jay, Naren, Alexey, >> >> Although I did not mention all the working group participants by name, >> please comment if you have an opinion about this. >> >> At 10:24 07-12-2015, Barry Leiba wrote: >> >>> -- Section 4 -- >>> >>> "Client can avoid use of LITERAL+ [RFC2088], when maximum upload size >>> supported by the IMAP server is unknown." >>> >>> What? >>> Don't you mean "The client SHOULD avoid"? I'd even use this as an >>> opportunity to make it firmer, and say "The client MUST avoid". No? >>> If not, why not? >>> >> > The proposal that a client MUST avoid LITERAL+/NSLs presumes there is a > limit when in fact there may actually not be one. Of course there is > always a finite limit, but there may be no policy limit. In fact we don't > plan to implement the limit as we've never had a request for it and don't > see a need to deny authenticated users from appending a mail (and see some > dangers in that). > > I think MAY works in that it proposes a strategy, and doesn't confuse > issues with servers that already implement LITERAL+ but not a limit. > Otherwise you may be placing a new requirement on old software to police > the new MUST, or implementing the limit places addition requirements to > alter behaviour of LITERAL+ support to enforce this which IMO > over-complicates it. > > Adrien > >> >>> > -- Thanks & Regards -Narendra _______________________________________________ imapext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext