Subject: [lemonade] RFC2192bis, quick comments

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:27:01 +0000

1) The ABNF for partial appears to be incorrect - I think the first 
nz-number should be number.

2) In answer to the open questions / comments in the specification:

Sec 3.1: I'm not sure what Chris's comment means here - if by "the 
shared folders name", Chris means, for instance, translating "INBOX" 
to, perhaps, "user.myusername", that would be reasonable if there 
were defined semantics for doing so - I didn't think NAMESPACE 
provided this, does it?

Sec 3.2: I think we should deprecate the LOGIN-as-anonymous method. 
Leave it in, but only as a fallback where the ANONYMOUS SASL mech is 
not advertised, but LOGIN is still available.

3) It occured to me that an uglier syntax for partials would encode 
the partial on the end of the section. This would change ABNF 
something like:

	isection	= enc-section [ "P" partial-range ]

This is fairly ugly, but it has the advantage that a naïve processor 
which is unaware of partials will most likely generate an error (or 
have the IMAP server generate one).

If partial is seperate, it's possible (and likely) that a naïve 
implementation would receive the URL, and resolve it to the full 
message part, which could be somewhat confusing to track down.

Dave.
-- 
           You see things; and you say "Why?"
   But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
    - George Bernard Shaw

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:02:23 +0000

> nz-number should be number.

Good catch, fixed.

> to, perhaps, "user.myusername", that would be reasonable if there were 
> defined semantics for doing so

Yes, this is what he meant

> - I didn't think NAMESPACE provided this, does it?

No, it does not.

> not advertised, but LOGIN is still available.

Yes, the editorial copy already says that.

> message part, which could be somewhat confusing to track down.

I think I understand the motivation. However I would rather not do the
hack you suggest, but I want to hear what other people think?