Re: AD review draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06

Hi,

On 17/12/2015 17:01, Narendra Bisht wrote:
> The data type for APPENDLIMIT is NUMBER.
> Will it accommodate a NIL?

RFC 3501 defines:
status-att-list =  status-att SP number *(SP status-att SP number)


RFC 4466 redefines status-att-list:
status-att-list = status-att-val *(SP status-att-val)
                      ;; Redefines status-att-list from RFC 3501.

status-att-val  = ("MESSAGES" SP number) /
                      ("RECENT" SP number) /
                      ("UIDNEXT" SP nz-number) /
                      ("UIDVALIDITY" SP nz-number) /
                      ("UNSEEN" SP number)
                      ;; Extensions to the STATUS responses
                      ;; should extend this production.
                      ;; Extensions should use the generic
                      ;; syntax defined by tagged-ext.

So, I think you should add RFC 4466 to Normative references, then add 
the following to Section 5 of your draft:

appendlimit-status-att-val = "APPENDLIMIT" SP (number / nil)
status-att-val /= appendlimit-status-att-val
                             ;; status-att-val is defined in RFC 4466

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: imapext [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alexey Melnikov
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 5:16 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [imapext] AD review of draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06
>
>
>> On 17 Dec 2015, at 03:39, Adrien de Croy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> ------ Original Message ------
>> From: "Barry Leiba" <[email protected]>
>> To: "Bron Gondwana" <[email protected]>
>> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>> Sent: 17/12/2015 9:14:31 a.m.
>> Subject: Re: [imapext] AD review of
>> draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-06
>>
>>>>> Why do we think there's anything wrong with using, say, the word
>>>>> "NONE" (either case-insensitive or case-sensitive; I don't care)?
>>>>> What's wrong with this?:
>>>>>
>>>>> C: t1 STATUS INBOX (APPENDLIMIT)
>>>>> S: * STATUS INBOX (APPENDLIMIT NONE)
>>>>> S: t1 OK STATUS completed
>>>> If you're going to do that, why not make it (APPENDLIMIT NIL), which
>>>> already has exactly the meaning that we want?
>>> Yes, I'd forgotten about the existing token "NIL".  I like that approach.
>> +1
>>
>> Definitely not a fan of overloading the meaning of magic numbers
> I don't think this is a particular important point (there are always limits of some kind), but I like NIL.

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