Subject: [imap5] synchronizing literals are dead, long live non-synchronizing literals

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:33:00 -0700

Synchronizing literals are a pain for clients, but IMAP4 clients have to 
support them because non-synchronizing literals are an optional feature.

We should completely eliminate synchronizing literals and only support 
non-synchronizing literals in IMAP5.

		- Chris

_______________________________________________
imap5 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 06:47:34 -0700

> non-synchronizing literals in IMAP5.

This will help to kill IMAP5.  The successful IETF protocols synchronize
mode switches between command and data: SMTP, POP3, NNTP, etc.

_________________________________________________________________
Be the filmmaker you always wanted to be—learn how to burn a DVD with Windows®.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108588797/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
imap5 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5

---

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:40:53 -0700

> mode switches between command and data: SMTP, POP3, NNTP, etc.

The most successful IETF protocol (HTTP) does not.  While success is not an 
indication of good design (and vice versa), I find it doubtful this is a 
major issue one way or the other.

However, after thinking about this more, I'd rather put synchronizing 
literals in the IMAP5compat package and have non-synchronizing literals in 
IMAP5core.  That way IMAP5 clients don't have to use synchronizing literals 
(thus simplifying their code), but IMAP4 clients need fewer changes to work 
with an IMAP5compat server.

		- Chris

---

From: "Filip Navara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 02:49:12 +0200

Wrong. HTTP has "Expect: 100-continue" though it's often misimplemented.

- Filip