Subject: [imapext] IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals - draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-01

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 03:25:09 -0800

Hello,

The second draft on our charter about "IMAP4 non-synchronizing 
literals" [1].  Could the working group please review 
draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-01 and send comments to the mailing list?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy (as imapapdb WG Chair)

1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-imapapnd-rfc2088bis-01

---

From: Jamie Nicolson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:35:32 -0800

Apologies if this was discussed before, but why limit the LITERAL- size
restriction to APPEND? Why not just make it apply to all commands: any
literal > 4KB must be sent as a synchronizing literal. This might be easier
for clients and servers to implement, so that the code for processing
literals doesn't need to know which command it belongs to. The impact on
other commands would be very limited, since they will almost never need to
send a literal that large.

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:25 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The second draft on our charter about "IMAP4 non-synchronizing literals"
> [1].  Could the working group please review
> _______________________________________________
> imapext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext
>

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 15:41:20 +0000

On 04/12/2015 18:35, Jamie Nicolson wrote:
> Apologies if this was discussed before, but why limit the LITERAL- 
> size restriction to APPEND? Why not just make it apply to all 
> commands: any literal > 4KB must be sent as a synchronizing literal. 
> This might be easier for clients and servers to implement, so that the 
> code for processing literals doesn't need to know which command it 
> belongs to. The impact on other commands would be very limited, since 
> they will almost never need to send a literal that large.
I personally don't mind if it applies to all commands. Other thoughts?
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:25 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hello,
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Stu Brandt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 14:12:13 -0500

Alexey -

I agree with Jamie...restricting to just APPEND (and MULTIAPPEND, and 
CATENATE) seems unnecessary.   Thinking of potential new extensions 
(e.g. REPLACE), there could likely be additional cases where the 
motivation for LITERAL- applies.

- Stu

On 12/8/15 10:41 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> This might be easier for clients and servers to implement, so that 
>> the code for processing literals doesn't need to know which command 
>> it belongs to. The impact on other commands would be very limited, 
>> since they will almost never need to send a literal that large.