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

On 17 December 2015 at 21:19, S Moonesamy <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Stu,
> At 09:37 17-12-2015, Stu Brandt wrote:
>
>> Since RFC 3501 section 4.5 states...
>>
>>    The special form "NIL" represents the non-existence of a particular
>>    data item that is represented as a string or parenthesized list, as
>>    distinct from the empty string "" or the empty parenthesized list ().
>>
>>
>> ...does the introduction of nil as an alternative to number now imply
>> that an update to this text is necessary?
>>
>
> Thanks for flagging this.
>
> I don't think so as it is ABNF in
> draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension which will be followed.  The
> following persons are in favor of using "NIL" [1][2][3][4]:
>
>   Barry Leiba (Area Director)
>   Bron Gondwana
>   Adrien de Croy
>   Alexey Melnikov
>
> I suggest going ahead with that.
>

I'm in favour too, but I'm also in favour of using it in the CAPABILITY
string as well. My reasonings:

1) I'd rather minimize the syntactic differences.

2) If a server advertises an appendlimit prior to authentication but wishes
to indicate no limit subsequent, there is currently no method for doing so.
I have no clue why a server would wish to do this, but the specification
seems adamant that changing the limit after login (rather than not
advertising it prior) is useful.

Dave.

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