Subject: Re: [MORG] Expiration impending: draft-ietf-morg-inthread

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 20:07:13 +0000

Barry Leiba wrote:

>>I want to update. But I want to update WITH RUNNING CODE, and I still don't
>>have an updated implementation.
>>    
>>
>
>That's fine, but as I said in my off-list notes to you, we're putting
>this on a timer.  When the other documents are ready and the working
>group is otherwise done, we will close the working group without this
>one, unless it's made some useful progress before that.
>  
>
Indeed. In fact, I might be closing the WG before approved MORG drafts 
are published. At least I intend to close it before my Apps AD term ends 
in 2 months time.

>Also, this will likely go to Experimental (rather than Standards
>Track), owing to lack of real consensus on it.  That's fine, and if
>you can get the time to move it forward I'm happy with that.  So don't
>let this put you off.  But we do need to move it ahead within
>someone's lifetime.
>  
>
+1.

---

From: Jan Kundrát <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:19:18 +0100

On 12/27/10 17:58, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> I want to update. But I want to update WITH RUNNING CODE, and I still
> don't have an updated implementation.
> 
> (The many drafts that go forward without running code tire me.)

Hi, I'm not sure how relevant it is, but I've added support for
THREAD=REFS to my Qt-based IMAP client called Trojita [1]. Given that
server-side support has been present at least in Dovecot for some time
already, I suspect this isn't much important, but I'm sharing that
information anyway.

With kind regards,
Jan

[1] http://trojita.flaska.net/

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 20:19:50 +0000

>already, I suspect this isn't much important, but I'm sharing that
Sounds great. Which version of the draft have you implemented and which 
features from it do you use?

---

From: Jan Kundrát <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:35:17 +0100

> features from it do you use?

I was working with draft-ietf-morg-inthread-01 [1] and implemented just
the THREAD=REFS command. This was the first threading variant to be
included in Trojita (I didn't consider THREAD=REFERENCES or
ORDEREDSUBJECT to be worth the work), hence my hesitation about the
importance of this implementation.

I do not have any plans to implement client-side threading in near
future, which is why I don't expect to use/need SEARCH=INTHREAD any time
soon.

Cheers,
Jan

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-morg-inthread-01

---

From: Jan Kundrát <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:51:26 +0100

On 01/06/11 21:39, Mark Crispin wrote:
> Considering that THREAD=REFERENCES and THREAD=ORDEREDSUBJECT are the only
> forms of threading that many servers will ever implement, this seems to be
> a rather unfortunate choice.

I'm aware of the fact that THREAD=REFS is still in very early stages of
adoption. However, the other threading methods would require quite heavy
postprocessing on the client side in order to be usable, at least
according to my metric -- I prefer not to have unrelated messages with
the same subject merged into one thread. An extra walk on all envelopes
to sort threads by date of recent arrivals is not worth it in my book,
either.

So the situation right now is either server-side threading by
THREAD=REFS, or no threading at all. If/when I implement threading which
doesn't require this extension, it will likely work by requesting
References/In-Reply-To headers and working on them.

Best regards,
Jan