Subject: Re: [MORG] Getting MORG moving

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:54:26 -0500

> + I need status reports on the following docs from the authors:
>
>  - Address Search (Arnt)
>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-morg-address-search
>
>  - In Thread (Arnt)
>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-morg-inthread
>
>  - Collations (Alexey)
>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-morg-collations

I've discussed the first two with Arnt, and we think that the main
question for all three of these is the one we've been discussing with
Mark on the other thread:

Does the working group think these are important and worth proceeding
with?  Will there be enough implementation of them for it to be worth
putting them through?  Or are we just writing them because they're
plausible, but they'll wind up sitting on the shelf in a list of
seldom-implemented IMAP extensions.

Let's please start a discussion here (in this thread) about these
three documents.  If there's enough detailed discussion about any of
them, we can split that off.  Please, all the active participants
should come out of the woodwork here, scurry around, and answer this
question for the three (expired) drafts noted above.  (Mark: You
needn't comment unless you specifically want to; your opinion is
already noted.)

If there's not a significant base of support for these, and commitment
to implement them, I recommend to the chairs that we drop any or all
of these three.

Barry, MORG secretary

---

From: Timo Sirainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 01:09:09 +0200

>>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-morg-address-search

From server point of view this is easy enough, so I could implement this for Dovecot. But I can't speak for client implementors.

>>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-morg-inthread

This is useful internally for Dovecot (for virtual mailboxes) and I've already implemented the actual SEARCH INTHREAD part of this. Whether it's useful to actual IMAP clients, again, I don't know.

>>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-morg-collations

I thought we already agreed that we don't know (or don't agree) what the important collations are and this was put on hold.

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:49:27 +0100

I agree entirely with Timo, and will happily work on "my" two. But I 
will NOT discuss whether they're worth pursuing.

We can drop them now, or we can take them to RFC. If we take them to 
RFC, then the RFC can sink or swim. All three outcomes are fine with me. 
What's NOT fine is replying to new-draft announcements by telling me I 
should stop.

Someone sent me mail the other day about C=D saying his client now 
supports it, and it was a name I knew. I let that draft expire because 
several people told me it was worthless and/or harmful, and revived it 
later. Now it's the widest-implemented lemonade document, isn't it? I 
wouldn't have predicted that outcome, so I'm not going to any prediction 
about the MORG documents.

Arnt

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:41:15 +0000

>From server point of view this is easy enough, so I could implement this for Dovecot. But I can't speak for client implementors.
I think this would make writing clients easier, especially if they 
require such extension.
How practical the latter assumption - I don't know.

>This is useful internally for Dovecot (for virtual mailboxes) and I've already implemented the actual SEARCH INTHREAD part of this.
>
As a server implementor I find this useful

>Whether it's useful to actual IMAP clients, again, I don't know.
>  
>
Same here.

>I thought we already agreed that we don't know (or don't agree) what the important collations are and this was put on hold.
Yes. There was some talk about working on a space ignore collation instead.