Subject: [Extra] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace-02: (with COMMENT)

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:17:30 -0700

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace-02: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-imap-replace/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rich version of this review at:
https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D12061

COMMENTS
S 2.
>      handling a REPLACE command, a server MUST NOT generate a response
>      code for the STORE +flags \DELETED portion of the sequence.
>      Additionally, servers supporting the REPLACE command MUST NOT infer
>      any inheritance of content, flags, or annotations from the message
>      being replaced.  Finally, the replaced and replacing messages SHOULD
>      NOT be present in the mailbox at the same time.

I don't think I understand this text. What would it look like for them
to be present at the same time.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 20:13:40 -0700

OK, do you think you could make that clearer along the lines as you have
done here.

-Ekr

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:10 PM Stuart Brandt <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Thanks, Eric. Comments inline.
>
> On 10/23/2018 8:17 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> This wording was a compromise from the original
> draft-brandt-imap-replace-00 that had much stronger language around the
> atomicity of REPLACE.  In discussions just prior to IETF93, the strict
> atomic guarantee was considered a hindrance to adoption by server
> implementors. The "SHOULD NOT" here is intended to *discourage* server
> implementors from allowing clients to discover and therefore act on both
> original and new messages, but acknowledges that in some cases it may be
> unavoidable.
>
> To answer your question more directly, it would look like it looks today
> without the REPLACE extension -- 2 independent messages existing
> concurrently for a moment in time along with the potential issues
> highlighted in the Overview section.
>

---

From: Stuart Brandt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 23:05:37 -0400

---

From: Stuart Brandt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 23:31:50 -0400

Sure. I'll see if I can improve clarity of this issue.

- Stuart

On 10/23/2018 11:13 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:10 PM Stuart Brandt <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
> _______________________________________________
> Extra mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra
>