Subject: Re: [lemonade] WGLC CATENATE

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 15:38:31 -0500

In addition to Philip's typo fix, I also believe that the examples that 
use a URL which contain a section need to be corrected to use 
"/;section=" instead of ";section=" if my reading of <isection> in RFC 
2192 is correct.

Eric Burger wrote:

> This is an announcement of the Work Group Last Call for CATENATE:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-lemonade-catenate-03.txt
> 
> This draft does not include one change that will be in -04 that will go for
> IETF Last Call, which is a typographical error found by Philip Guenther:
> 
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lemonade/current/msg01035.html
> 
> Work Group Last Call will close 3 February 2005 at noon US Eastern Time.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lemonade mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

-- 
Kenneth Murchison     Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer     21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26      Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key--    http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp

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

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:09:47 -0500

Point of clarification:  Are we saying that CATENATE is *only* valid in 
the selected state (where the URL MUST NOT refer to a different mailbox) 
or is it also allowed in authenticated state?  A note in the text says 
that "the CATENATE command is valid in the selected state", but doesn't 
say "only".

Also, to emphasize this point perhaps one or more of the examples can 
use a relative URL, e.g: "/;UID=20/;section=HEADER"

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:40:47 +0000

Ken Murchison wrote:

> Point of clarification:  Are we saying that CATENATE is *only* valid 
> in the selected state (where the URL MUST NOT refer to a different 
> mailbox) or is it also allowed in authenticated state?  A note in the 
> text says that "the CATENATE command is valid in the selected state", 
> but doesn't say "only".

Currently it is only allowed in the selected state. However, my gut 
feeling is that CATENATE will be extended in the future, so it will be 
allowed in other states. My preference is to leave the wording as is.

> use a relative URL, e.g: "/;UID=20/;section=HEADER"

Good point.

Alexey

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:47:41 -0500

> allowed in other states. My preference is to leave the wording as is.

Why not just open it up now?  Are we worried about implementation 
problems?  Even in selected state, wouldn't it be desirable to allow 
parts of messages from another mailbox to be used?

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 10:44:32 -0800

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Ken Murchison wrote:
> Why not just open it up now?  Are we worried about implementation problems? 
> Even in selected state, wouldn't it be desirable to allow parts of messages 
> from another mailbox to be used?

I agree.

-- Mark --

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

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:33:44 +0000

Ken Murchison wrote:

>>> mailbox) or is it also allowed in authenticated state?  A note in 
>>> the text says that "the CATENATE command is valid in the selected 
>>> state", but doesn't say "only".
>>
>> feeling is that CATENATE will be extended in the future, so it will 
>> be allowed in other states. My preference is to leave the wording as is.
>

I think we had this argument before. Restricting CATENATE to the 
currently selected mailbox makes server implementations easier.
Of course, if we allow for something evil like http URLs, there is no 
need to have any mailbox selected :-).

I personally prefer no restriction, even though I agree that this will 
need more work for server implementors.

Alexey

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 12:32:22 -0800

[Cc'ing this directly to Chris Newman for comment.]

On 2/2/05 at 10:44 AM -0800, Mark Crispin wrote:
>>>>Point of clarification:  Are we saying that CATENATE is *only* 
>>>>valid in the selected state (where the URL MUST NOT refer to a 
>>>>different mailbox) or is it also allowed in authenticated state? 
>>>>A note in the text says that "the CATENATE command is valid in 
>>>>the selected state", but doesn't say "only".
>>>
>>>Currently it is only allowed in the selected state. However, my 
>>>gut feeling is that CATENATE will be extended in the future, so it 
>>>will be allowed in other states. My preference is to leave the 
>>>wording as is.
>>

As (I think) I've said before, this is a trivial change that I have 
no personal objection to allowing unselected mailboxes on the current 
server. (I think there are more people than just me that would object 
to having other servers, or other protocols besides IMAP, in the base 
spec.) However, Chris Newman said for his (and I believe he claimed 
other) servers, this would be a huge implementation burden if it was 
required in the base CATENATE spec.

Can we get some quick resolution to this question? Can you all please 
fight it out and let me know whether you want:

a) Any message on the current IMAP server
...or...
b) Any message in the currently selected mailbox

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102