Subject: [lemonade] CATENATE, URLAUTH and RFC 2192bis

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:08:10 -0500

While doing some interop testing with Dave Cridland, Dave brought up a 
good point which I think is worth mentioning here.

The current CATENATE and URLAUTH drafts both have RFC 2192 as normative 
references.  RFC 2192 doesn't have support for partial fetches.  RFC 
2192bis adds support for partial fetches via 'ipartial'.  There is a 
potential for an interop problem here if a newer client using RFC 
2192bis as a reference tries to do a partial fetch against an older 
server using RFC 2192 as a reference.  In other words, the client has no 
way of knowing whether the server supports partial fetches.

The solution would be to make RFC 2192bis the normative reference for 
both CATENATE and URLAUTH.  Alternatively (and more ugly), we could add 
a new IMAP capability which announces support for ipartial in URLs.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Systems Programmer
Carnegie Mellon University

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

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:35:53 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Ken Murchison wrote:
> In other words, the client has no way of knowing whether the server supports 
> partial fetches.

Unless we want to pull URLAUTH back from the RFC Editor queue, we will 
need a new new IMAP capability which announces support for ipartial in 
URLs.

Is ipartial in URLs a LEMONADE requirement?  I forget if it is or not.

> The solution would be to make RFC 2192bis the normative reference for both 
> CATENATE and URLAUTH.

I think that this is a bad idea for URLAUTH.  I hope that 2192bis will 
replace both RFC 2192 and URLAUTH by incorporating URLAUTH; but to do 
2192bis properly will require time.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.