Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-morg-multimailbox-search-07

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:05:32 -0600

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-morg-multimailbox-search-07
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Mar-10-2011
IETF LC End Date: Unknown
IESG Telechat date: Mar-17-2011

Summary: This draft is ready as an Experimental RFC.

Major issues: 0
Minor issues: 0
Nits/editorial comments: 1

Nits:

- Section 5: "... in an expensive search of tens of thousands of
    mailboxes." --- Is this true or a hyperbole for effect?  Do people
    have tens of thousands of folders in an IMAP account (I believe
    the term "mailbox" equates to a folder).  I guess modern operating
    system allow millions of inodes (or their equivalent) on a
    filesystem, so technically you may be correct, of course.  I
    was just curious if operationally this is the case.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:01:05 -0500

Thanks for the review, Vijay.

>   was just curious if operationally this is the case.

It's not hyperbole.  There have been IMAP servers that exposed tens of
thousands of Usenet newsgroups as shared IMAP mailboxes.  I think it's
unlikely (though possible) that any personal namespaces have tens of
thousands of private mailboxes, but it's easily possible for a
"subtree" search to hit that many in a situation such as this.

Barry

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:00:27 -0600

> "subtree" search to hit that many in a situation such as this.

Barry: OK.  Thanks for clarifying.  I am fine with the text as
it currently stands, and have no further comments.

Regards,

- vijay