Re: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension-08: (with COMMENT)

Hi Alissa,
At 11:10 05-01-2016, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-imapapnd-appendlimit-extension/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>It's unusual to see author names without first initials in the document
>header. Not sure if that was intentional but seems like it should be
>fixed (assuming the authors have both first names and surnames).

It is a mistake.  It will be fixed in the next revision of the draft.

>= Section 2 =
>
>"In this case the client SHOULD get an APPENDLIMIT value by issuing a
>    STATUS or LIST command.
>
>    An IMAP client SHOULD be able to parse both formats.  By looking at
>    the upload size advertised by the IMAP server, a client MUST NOT try
>    to APPEND mail more than the advertised limit."
>
>The first and last normative requirements here seem too strict
>considering that this extension basically allows an optimization. That
>is, if a client decides not to find out the append limit for a particular
>mailbox using STATUS or LIST, that doesn't seem to create any particular
>problem. Likewise, it seems better for a client to avoid sending an
>attachment larger than a known limit, but doing so doesn't seem so
>problematic as to warrant a MUST NOT.

NEW
    In this case the client can get an APPENDLIMIT value by either issuing
    a STATUS or a LIST command.

    By looking at the upload size advertised by the IMAP server a client
    can avoid trying to APPEND mail more than the advertised limit.
END

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as document shepherd) 

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