Subject: [lemonade] Comments on draft-melnikov-imap-expunged-00

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 13:13:19 -0600

Sec 3.3
   <<alternative #1: extend syntax for the CHANGEDSINCE FETCH
   modifier.

Why even have the keyword REPORTEXPUNGES? Why not just overload
CHANGEDSINCE to imply expunges? 

   <<What if the server can?t remember some expunged UIDs, for example
   the provided mod-sequence is too old? Can the server just return
   all UIDs not in the UID set? This can generate additional traffic,
   but should be Ok otherwise.>>

How does the client know when there are forgotten expunges? In this case
the client must use the conventional approach to determining expunged 
mail, which is okay, it just needs to know when to do it.

Sec 3.5

   <<Add CHANGEDSINCE SELECT/EXAMINE parameter?>>

I assume this is an orthogonal item that was just missed in the original
CONDSTORE? What is it? It is kind of weird to include this in an Expunge 
doc. Maybe this doc should be CONDSTOREPLUS. ;-)

Sec 4

   " ... HIGHESTMODSEQ with the one returned by the server. If the cached
   HIGHESTMODSEQ value also matches the one returned by the server,
   then the client MUST NOT fetch flags for cached messages, as they
   hasn't changed. "

Shouldn't this be "SHOULD NOT". Also, "hasn't" should be "haven't"

Mike

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

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:17:59 +0000

>CHANGEDSINCE to imply expunges? 
Sending expunge information to the client who hasn't asked for it 
doesn't sound right, even though any client should be able to ignore 
such information.

If we choose to replace CONDSTORE, there would be no REPORTEXPUNGES.

>mail, which is okay, it just needs to know when to do it.
Client doesn't know and need not know. I think this is a server only issue.

>CONDSTORE?
Yes, you are right.

> What is it? It is kind of weird to include this in an Expunge 
>Shouldn't this be "SHOULD NOT".
>
This is an informative section, so I should probably lowercase the term.

>Also, "hasn't" should be "haven't"
>  
>
Thank you for the comments!

Alexey