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

On 18/12/2015 10:55, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 17 December 2015 at 21:19, S Moonesamy <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[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.
I think "adamant" is a bit too strong. But I don't object to what you 
propose.

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