Subject: [MORG] I-D Action:draft-krecicki-imap-move-01.txt (fwd)

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:54:07 -0400

Hi,
I noticed the draft announcement below. Whilst not strictly a work item of 
this working group (though one could argue it fails under the "secondary 
goal" part of the charter), I think it is worth discussing this draft on 
this list (since most of the other imap lists are dormant).

My thoughts: yes it is about time we had such an extension. Minimising 
roundtrips for one of the most common filing operations a client does is a 
good thing - particularly for mobile devices. It would be good to hear what 
server implementors think of this as the burden is really on them to do all 
the work here.

------------ Forwarded Message -----------
Date: June 11, 2010 2:15:02 PM -0700
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: I-D Action:draft-krecicki-imap-move-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

	Title           : Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - MOVE extension
	Author(s)       : W. Krecicki
	Filename        : draft-krecicki-imap-move-01.txt
	Pages           : 5
	Date            : 2010-06-11

The MOVE extension of the Internet Message Access Protocol [IMAP4]
provides a feature intended to reduce the amount of time and
resources used by usual complicated methods of moving messages
between mailboxes by providing the capability of directly moving
messages.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-krecicki-imap-move-01.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---------- End Forwarded Message ----------

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:36:36 -0400

Hi,

--On June 11, 2010 5:54:07 PM -0400 Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I noticed the draft announcement below. Whilst not strictly a work item
> of this working group (though one could argue it fails under the
> "secondary goal" part of the charter), I think it is worth discussing
> this draft on this list (since most of the other imap lists are dormant).

Apparently discussion is happening on the imap-protocol list (which I seem 
to not be subscribed to) so ignore my comments here.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Dan Karp <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:22:52 -0700 (PDT)

> > I noticed the draft announcement below. Whilst not strictly a work
> > item of this working group (though one could argue it fails under
> > the "secondary goal" part of the charter), I think it is worth
> > discussing this draft on this list (since most of the other imap
> > lists are dormant).
> 
> Apparently discussion is happening on the imap-protocol list (which I
> seem to not be subscribed to) so ignore my comments here.

As an aside -- and because I have no desire to get involved with the
discussion on imap-protocol -- I would be willing to implement such
an extension if it were properly formalized.  And I do think it's 
well within the scope of MORG.